lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/11] mm,migration: Do not try to migrate unmapped anonymous pages
Date
> mm,migration: Do not try to migrate unmapped anonymous pages
>
> rmap_walk_anon() was triggering errors in memory compaction that look like
> use-after-free errors. The problem is that between the page being isolated
> from the LRU and rcu_read_lock() being taken, the mapcount of the page
> dropped to 0 and the anon_vma gets freed. This can happen during memory
> compaction if pages being migrated belong to a process that exits before
> migration completes. Hence, the use-after-free race looks like
>
> 1. Page isolated for migration
> 2. Process exits
> 3. page_mapcount(page) drops to zero so anon_vma was no longer reliable
> 4. unmap_and_move() takes the rcu_lock but the anon_vma is already garbage
> 4. call try_to_unmap, looks up tha anon_vma and "locks" it but the lock
> is garbage.
>
> This patch checks the mapcount after the rcu lock is taken. If the
> mapcount is zero, the anon_vma is assumed to be freed and no further
> action is taken.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> ---
> mm/migrate.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> index 98eaaf2..6eb1efe 100644
> --- a/mm/migrate.c
> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> @@ -603,6 +603,19 @@ static int unmap_and_move(new_page_t get_new_page, unsigned long private,
> */
> if (PageAnon(page)) {
> rcu_read_lock();
> +
> + /*
> + * If the page has no mappings any more, just bail. An
> + * unmapped anon page is likely to be freed soon but worse,
> + * it's possible its anon_vma disappeared between when
> + * the page was isolated and when we reached here while
> + * the RCU lock was not held
> + */
> + if (!page_mapcount(page)) {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + goto uncharge;
> + }

I haven't understand what prevent this check. Why don't we need following scenario?

1. Page isolated for migration
2. Passed this if (!page_mapcount(page)) check
3. Process exits
4. page_mapcount(page) drops to zero so anon_vma was no longer reliable


Traditionally, page migration logic is, it can touch garbarge of anon_vma, but
SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU prevent any disaster. Is this broken concept?





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-17 03:05    [W:0.119 / U:2.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site