lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/1] hugepages: Fix race between hugetlbfs umount and quota update.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 02:51:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:14:11 -0500
> Andrew Barry <abarry@cray.com> wrote:
>
> > This patch fixes a use-after-free problem in free_huge_page, with a quota update
> > happening after hugetlbfs umount. The problem results when a device driver,
> > which has mapped a hugepage, does a put_page. Put_page, calls free_huge_page,
> > which does a hugetlb_put_quota. As written, hugetlb_put_quota takes an
> > address_space struct pointer "mapping" as an argument. If the put_page occurs
> > after the hugetlbfs filesystem is unmounted, mapping points to freed memory.
>
> OK. This sounds screwed up. If a device driver is currently using a
> page from a hugetlbfs file then the unmount shouldn't have succeeded in
> the first place!
>
> Or is it the case that the device driver got a reference to the page by
> other means, bypassing hugetlbfs? And there's undesirable/incorrect
> interaction between the non-hugetlbfs operation and hugetlbfs?
>
> Or something else?
>
> <starts reading the mailing list>
>
> OK, important missing information from the above is that the driver got
> at this page via get_user_pages() and happened to stumble across a
> hugetlbfs page. So it's indeed an incorrect interaction between a
> non-hugetlbfs operation and hugetlbfs.
>
> What's different about hugetlbfs? Why don't other filesystems hit this?
>
> <investigates further>
>
> OK so the incorrect interaction happened in free_huge_page(), which is
> called via the compound page destructor (this dtor is "what's different
> about hugetlbfs"). What is incorrect about this is
>
> a) that we're doing fs operations in response to a
> get_user_pages()/put_page() operation which has *nothing* to do with
> filesystems!
>
> b) that we continue to try to do that fs operation against an fs
> which was unmounted and freed three days ago. duh.
>
>
> So I hereby pronounce that
>
> a) It was wrong to manipulate hugetlbfs quotas within
> free_huge_page(). Because free_huge_page() is a low-level
> page-management function which shouldn't know about one of its
> specific clients (in this case, hugetlbfs).
>
> In fact it's wrong for there to be *any* mention of hugetlbfs
> within hugetlb.c.
>
> b) I shouldn't have merged that hugetlbfs quota code. whodidthat.
> Mel, Adam, Dave, at least...
>
> c) The proper fix here is to get that hugetlbfs quota code out of
> free_huge_page() and do it all where it belongs: within hugetlbfs
> code.
>
> Regular filesystems don't need to diddle quota counts within
> page_cache_release(). Why should hugetlbfs need to?

Regular filesystems can assume there's a few spare pages that can
buffer quota transitions. Hugepages on the other hand are scarce, and
it's common practice to want to actively use every single one of the
system.

I really can't see how to avoid poking the counts from
free_huge_page(), whether or not it's directly or via some sort of
callback.

Andrew (Morton) or Hugh, if you can suggest a more correct way to fix
this, I'm all ears, but at present we have a real bug and Andrew
Barry's patch is the best fix we have.

--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-01 07:31    [W:0.068 / U:2.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site