linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	adobriyan@gmail.com, willy@infradead.org, mguzik@redhat.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH] mm: introduce arg_lock to protect arg_start|end and env_start|end in mm_struct
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:33:35 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e868b50d-88a3-a649-d998-b7f2bb2c40aa@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180410191742.GE2041@uranus.lan>



On 4/10/18 12:17 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:28:13AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>> At the first glance, it looks feasible to me. Will look into deeper
>>> later.
>> A further look told me this might be *not* feasible.
>>
>> It looks the new lock will not break check_data_rlimit since in my patch
>> both start_brk and brk is protected by mmap_sem. The code flow might look
>> like below:
>>
>> CPU A                             CPU B
>> --------                       --------
>> prctl                               sys_brk
>>                                        down_write
>> check_data_rlimit           check_data_rlimit (need mm->start_brk)
>>                                        set brk
>> down_write                    up_write
>> set start_brk
>> set brk
>> up_write
>>
>> If CPU A gets the mmap_sem first, it will set start_brk and brk, then CPU B
>> will check with the new start_brk. And, prctl doesn't care if sys_brk is run
>> before it since it gets the new start_brk and brk from parameter.
>>
>> If we protect start_brk and brk with the new lock, sys_brk might get old
>> start_brk, then sys_brk might break rlimit check silently, is that right?
>>
>> So, it looks using new lock in prctl and keeping mmap_sem in brk path has
>> race condition.
> I fear so. The check_data_rlimit implies that all elements involved into
> validation (brk, start_brk, start_data, end_data) are not changed unpredicably
> until written back into mm. In turn if we guard start_brk,brk only (as
> it is done in the patch) the check_data_rlimit may pass on wrong data
> I think. And as you mentioned the race above exact the example of such
> situation. I think for prctl case we can simply left use of mmap_sem
> as it were before the patch, after all this syscall is really in cold
> path all the time.

The race condition is just valid when protecting start_brk, brk, 
start_data and end_data with the new lock, but keep using mmap_sem in 
brk path.

So, we should just need make a little tweak to have mmap_sem protect 
start_brk, brk, start_data and end_data, then have the new lock protect 
others so that we still can remove mmap_sem in proc as the patch is 
aimed to do.

Yang

>
> 	Cyrill

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-10 19:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-09 21:52 [v3 PATCH] mm: introduce arg_lock to protect arg_start|end and env_start|end in mm_struct Yang Shi
2018-04-10  8:48 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2018-04-10  9:09 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-10  9:40   ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2018-04-10 10:42     ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-10 11:02       ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2018-04-10 11:10         ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-10 12:28           ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2018-04-10 16:21             ` Yang Shi
2018-04-10 18:28               ` Yang Shi
2018-04-10 19:17                 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2018-04-10 19:33                   ` Yang Shi [this message]
2018-04-10 20:06                     ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2018-04-12 12:18                 ` Michal Hocko
2018-04-12 16:20                   ` Yang Shi
2018-04-13  6:56                     ` Michal Hocko

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=e868b50d-88a3-a649-d998-b7f2bb2c40aa@linux.alibaba.com \
    --to=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mguzik@redhat.com \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).