linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.com, mingo@kernel.org,
	rientjes@google.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com,
	salls@cs.ucsb.edu
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	tanxiaojun@huawei.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] mm/mempolicy: fix the check of nodemask from user
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:28:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1e0f1e50-4900-78d2-6586-bd68f5849337@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <65c0e6cb-28b4-f202-1d7f-278b5dfc3440@huawei.com>

On 10/31/2017 12:01 PM, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2017/10/31 17:30, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 10/27/2017 12:14 PM, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * When the user specified more nodes than supported just check
>>> +	 * if the non supported part is all zero.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * If maxnode have more longs than MAX_NUMNODES, check
>>> +	 * the bits in that area first. And then go through to
>>> +	 * check the rest bits which equal or bigger than MAX_NUMNODES.
>>> +	 * Otherwise, just check bits [MAX_NUMNODES, maxnode).
>>> +	 */
>>>  	if (nlongs > BITS_TO_LONGS(MAX_NUMNODES)) {
>>>  		for (k = BITS_TO_LONGS(MAX_NUMNODES); k < nlongs; k++) {
>>> -			unsigned long t;
>>>  			if (get_user(t, nmask + k))
>>>  				return -EFAULT;
>>>  			if (k == nlongs - 1) {
>>> @@ -1294,6 +1301,16 @@ static int get_nodes(nodemask_t *nodes, const unsigned long __user *nmask,
>>>  		endmask = ~0UL;
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> +	if (maxnode > MAX_NUMNODES && MAX_NUMNODES % BITS_PER_LONG != 0) {
>>> +		unsigned long valid_mask = endmask;
>>> +
>>> +		valid_mask &= ~((1UL << (MAX_NUMNODES % BITS_PER_LONG)) - 1);
>>
>> I'm not sure if the combination with endmask works in this case:
>>
>> 0      BITS_PER_LONG  2xBITS_PER_LONG
>> |____________|____________|
>>        |             |
>>   MAX_NUMNODES      maxnode
>>
>> endmask will contain bits between 0 and maxnode
> 
> In the case, BITS_TO_LONGS(maxnode) > BITS_TO_LONGS(MAX_NUMNODES), right?
> And after checking BITS_PER_LONG to 2xBITS_PER_LONGi 1/4 ?endmask will set to
> "~0UL". e.g. endmask will be 0xffff ffff ffff ffff if
> unsigned long is 64bit.
> 
> Then the valid_mask will just contain bits MAX_NUMNODES to BITS_PER_LONG.

Ugh, right. I missed that. This code is not simple...

> Thanks
> Yisheng Xie
> 
>> but here we want to check bits between MAX_NUMNODES and BITS_PER_LONG
>> and endmask should not be mixed up with that?
>>
>>
>> Vlastimil
>>
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-31 11:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-27 10:14 [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] some fixes and clean up for mempolicy Yisheng Xie
2017-10-27 10:14 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/4] mm/mempolicy: Fix get_nodes() mask miscalculation Yisheng Xie
2017-10-31  8:34   ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-11-01  9:37     ` Yisheng Xie
2017-10-27 10:14 ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/4] mm/mempolicy: remove redundant check in get_nodes Yisheng Xie
2017-10-31  8:55   ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-10-27 10:14 ` [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] mm/mempolicy: fix the check of nodemask from user Yisheng Xie
2017-10-31  9:30   ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-10-31 11:01     ` Yisheng Xie
2017-10-31 11:28       ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2017-10-27 10:14 ` [PATCH RFC v2 4/4] mm/mempolicy: add nodes_empty check in SYSC_migrate_pages Yisheng Xie
2017-10-31  9:46   ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-11-06  1:31     ` Yisheng Xie
2017-11-06  7:39       ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-11-06 15:29         ` Christopher Lameter
2017-11-07 11:23           ` Yisheng Xie
2017-11-07 14:54             ` Christopher Lameter
2017-11-07 15:05               ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-11-07 15:55                 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-11-08  1:38                   ` Yisheng Xie
2017-11-08 15:02                     ` Christopher Lameter
2017-11-09 10:54                       ` Yisheng Xie
2017-11-09 15:46                         ` Christopher Lameter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1e0f1e50-4900-78d2-6586-bd68f5849337@suse.cz \
    --to=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=salls@cs.ucsb.edu \
    --cc=tanxiaojun@huawei.com \
    --cc=xieyisheng1@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox