lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/mempolicy: add nodes_empty check in SYSC_migrate_pages
From
Date
On 11/17/2017 02:37 AM, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> As manpage of migrate_pages, the errno should be set to EINVAL when
> none of the node IDs specified by new_nodes are on-line and allowed
> by the process's current cpuset context, or none of the specified
> nodes contain memory. However, when test by following case:
>
> new_nodes = 0;
> old_nodes = 0xf;
> ret = migrate_pages(pid, old_nodes, new_nodes, MAX);
>
> The ret will be 0 and no errno is set. As the new_nodes is empty,
> we should expect EINVAL as documented.
>
> To fix the case like above, this patch check whether target nodes
> AND current task_nodes is empty, and then check whether AND
> node_states[N_MEMORY] is empty.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
> ---
> mm/mempolicy.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index 65df28d..f604b22 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -1433,10 +1433,14 @@ static int copy_nodes_to_user(unsigned long __user *mask, unsigned long maxnode,
> goto out_put;
> }

Let me add the whole preceding that ends on the lines above:

task_nodes = cpuset_mems_allowed(task);
/* Is the user allowed to access the target nodes? */
if (!nodes_subset(*new, task_nodes) && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) {
err = -EPERM;
goto out_put;
}

>
> - if (!nodes_subset(*new, node_states[N_MEMORY])) {
> - err = -EINVAL;
> + task_nodes = cpuset_mems_allowed(current);
> + nodes_and(*new, *new, task_nodes);
> + if (nodes_empty(*new))
> + goto out_put;

So if we have CAP_SYS_NICE, we pass (or rather skip) the EPERM check
above, but the current cpuset restriction still applies regardless. This
doesn't make sense to me? If I get Christoph right in the v2 discussion,
then CAP_SYS_NICE should not allow current cpuset escape. In that case,
we should remove the CAP_SYS_NICE check from the EPERM check? Also
should it be a subset check, or a non-empty-intersection check?

Note there's still a danger that we are breaking existing code so this
will have to be reverted in any case...

> +
> + nodes_and(*new, *new, node_states[N_MEMORY]);
> + if (nodes_empty(*new))
> goto out_put;
> - }
>
> err = security_task_movememory(task);
> if (err)
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-27 18:28    [W:0.101 / U:6.436 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site