Re: Ugly rmap NULL ptr deref oopsie on hibernate (was Linux2.6.34-rc3)
From: Minchan Kim
Date: Tue Apr 06 2010 - 12:24:06 EST
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 08:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Let's see the unlink_anon_vmas.
> > 1. list_for_each_entry_safe(avc,next, vma->anon_vma_chain, same_vma)
> > 2. anon_vma_unlink
> > 3. spin_lock(anon_vma->lock) <-- HERE LOCK.
> > 4. list_del(anon_vma_chain->same_anon_vma);
> > What if anon_vma is destroyed and reuse by SLAB_XXX_RCU for another
> > anon_vma object between 2 and 3?
> > I mean how to make sure 3) does lock valid anon_vma?
> > I hope it is culprit.
> I don't think so. That isn't the racy case. We're working with a
> anon_vma_chain, so the anonvma is all there.
But the anon_vma is using for another anon_vma.
Nonetheless, anon_vma_unlink does list_del(anon_vma's same_anon_vma).
I doubt it.
> The racy case is when we look up an anonvma by the page, and the page gets
> unmapped at the same time because somebody else is travelling over the LRU
> list of the page itself, isn't it?
Yes. but I thought page might travel with anon_vmas which have
same_anon_vma deleted by race.
> I do wonder if "page_lock_anon_vma()" should check the whole
> "page_mapped()" case _after_ taking the anon_vma lock. Because if the race
> happens, we're following a anon_vma list that has nothing to do with that
> page (it's stilla _valid_ list, since we locked the anon_vma, but will it
> be ok?)
So we always use it with (vma_address and page_check_address) to make
sure validation of anon_vma.
But I think it's not good design. I want to hold lock ahead checking of
page_mapped but maybe performance issue? I am not sure.
> IOW, what is it that really keeps the anon_vma list reliable _and_
> relevant wrt the page? We know we may get a stale anon_vma, are we ok if
> that anon_vma list doesn't actually have anything to do with the page any
> I think the first check in "page_address_in_vma()" protects us, but
> However, that made me look at the PAGE_MIGRATION case. That seems to be
> just broken. It's doing that page_anon_vma() + spin_lock without holding
> any RCU locks, so there is no guarantee that anon_vma there is at all
FYI, recently there is a patch about migration case.
> Is that function always called with rcu_read_lock()?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/