From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <Herbert.van.den.Bergh@oracle.com>,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mlock: fix potential imbalanced rlimit ucounts adjustment
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 11:49:41 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <291c20b2-0559-5226-0718-2d7bb1571079@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1e758c8f-c87b-50ef-52db-942c8a86a32a@google.com>
On 2022/3/14 11:11, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2022/3/14 10:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>
>>>> user_shm_lock forgets to set allowed to 0 when get_ucounts fails. So
>>>> the later user_shm_unlock might do the extra dec_rlimit_ucounts. Fix
>>>> this by resetting allowed to 0.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 5ed44a401ddf ("do not limit locked memory when RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is RLIM_INFINITY")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> NAK. user_shm_lock() remembers to declare "int allowed = 0" on entry.
>>>
>>
>> If lock_limit is RLIM_INFINITY, "allowed" will be set to 1. And if get_ucounts fails
>> in some corner cases, "allowed" will remain to be 1 while the user_shm_lock ops indeed
>> fails. Or am I miss something?
>
> You are right, I am wrong: sorry.
> Thanks for pointing now to that RLIM_INFINITY case.
>
> But then the Fixes tag is wrong: it should be
> Fixes: d7c9e99aee48 ("Reimplement RLIMIT_MEMLOCK on top of ucounts")
> which introduced the possibility of error down there.
>
You're right. commit 5ed44a401ddf ("do not limit locked memory when RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is RLIM_INFINITY")
introduced RLIM_INFINITY and set "allowed" to 1 but there is no possibility of error down there.
Will change this in V2.
> With that,
> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Many thanks!
>
>>
>> Many thanks for comment.
>>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/mlock.c | 1 +
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
>>>> index 29372c0eebe5..efd2dd2943de 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/mlock.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
>>>> @@ -733,6 +733,7 @@ int user_shm_lock(size_t size, struct ucounts *ucounts)
>>>> }
>>>> if (!get_ucounts(ucounts)) {
>>>> dec_rlimit_ucounts(ucounts, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, locked);
>>>> + allowed = 0;
>>>> goto out;
>>>> }
>>>> allowed = 1;
>>>> --
>>>> 2.23.0
> .
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-14 3:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-10 13:24 [PATCH] mm/mlock: fix potential imbalanced rlimit ucounts adjustment Miaohe Lin
2022-03-14 2:40 ` Hugh Dickins
2022-03-14 2:49 ` Miaohe Lin
2022-03-14 3:11 ` Hugh Dickins
2022-03-14 3:49 ` Miaohe Lin [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=291c20b2-0559-5226-0718-2d7bb1571079@huawei.com \
--to=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=Herbert.van.den.Bergh@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=legion@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox