On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 05:35:01PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Can you please test whether this patch resolves the issue?  While
> adding support for atomic allocations, I reduced alloc_mutex covered
> region too much.

after the patch the use-after-free is no longer seen.
Tested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
> index 0c59684..bd2df70 100644
> --- a/mm/percpu.c
> +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ static struct pcpu_chunk *pcpu_reserved_chunk;
>  static int pcpu_reserved_chunk_limit;
>  
>  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(pcpu_lock);   /* all internal data structures */
> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(pcpu_alloc_mutex);       /* chunk create/destroy, 
> [de]pop */
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(pcpu_alloc_mutex);       /* chunk create/destroy, 
> [de]pop, map extension */
>  
>  static struct list_head *pcpu_slot __read_mostly; /* chunk list slots */
>  
> @@ -435,6 +435,8 @@ static int pcpu_extend_area_map(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk, 
> int new_alloc)
>       size_t old_size = 0, new_size = new_alloc * sizeof(new[0]);
>       unsigned long flags;
>  
> +     lockdep_assert_held(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> +
>       new = pcpu_mem_zalloc(new_size);
>       if (!new)
>               return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -895,6 +897,9 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t 
> align, bool reserved,
>               return NULL;
>       }
>  
> +     if (!is_atomic)
> +             mutex_lock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> +
>       spin_lock_irqsave(&pcpu_lock, flags);
>  
>       /* serve reserved allocations from the reserved chunk if available */
> @@ -967,12 +972,11 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t 
> align, bool reserved,
>       if (is_atomic)
>               goto fail;
>  
> -     mutex_lock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> +     lockdep_assert_held(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
>  
>       if (list_empty(&pcpu_slot[pcpu_nr_slots - 1])) {
>               chunk = pcpu_create_chunk();
>               if (!chunk) {
> -                     mutex_unlock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
>                       err = "failed to allocate new chunk";
>                       goto fail;
>               }
> @@ -983,7 +987,6 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t 
> align, bool reserved,
>               spin_lock_irqsave(&pcpu_lock, flags);
>       }
>  
> -     mutex_unlock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
>       goto restart;
>  
>  area_found:
> @@ -993,8 +996,6 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t 
> align, bool reserved,
>       if (!is_atomic) {
>               int page_start, page_end, rs, re;
>  
> -             mutex_lock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> -
>               page_start = PFN_DOWN(off);
>               page_end = PFN_UP(off + size);
>  
> @@ -1005,7 +1006,6 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t 
> align, bool reserved,
>  
>                       spin_lock_irqsave(&pcpu_lock, flags);
>                       if (ret) {
> -                             mutex_unlock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
>                               pcpu_free_area(chunk, off, &occ_pages);
>                               err = "failed to populate";
>                               goto fail_unlock;
> @@ -1045,6 +1045,8 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t 
> align, bool reserved,
>               /* see the flag handling in pcpu_blance_workfn() */
>               pcpu_atomic_alloc_failed = true;
>               pcpu_schedule_balance_work();
> +     } else {
> +             mutex_unlock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
>       }
>       return NULL;
>  }
> @@ -1137,6 +1139,8 @@ static void pcpu_balance_workfn(struct work_struct 
> *work)
>       list_for_each_entry_safe(chunk, next, &to_free, list) {
>               int rs, re;
>  
> +             cancel_work_sync(&chunk->map_extend_work);
> +
>               pcpu_for_each_pop_region(chunk, rs, re, 0, pcpu_unit_pages) {
>                       pcpu_depopulate_chunk(chunk, rs, re);
>                       spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);

Reply via email to