From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
To: Kanchana P Sridhar <kanchana.p.sridhar@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, nphamcs@gmail.com, chengming.zhou@linux.dev,
usamaarif642@gmail.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com,
ying.huang@intel.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, wajdi.k.feghali@intel.com,
vinodh.gopal@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm: zswap: Fix a potential memory leak in zswap_decompress().
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:34:45 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkZWDhOXyyZnEYFiS7F4tSV+z6TYXUYiEcrZrRuy_3R=ZA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241113052413.157039-1-kanchana.p.sridhar@intel.com>
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 9:24 PM Kanchana P Sridhar
<kanchana.p.sridhar@intel.com> wrote:
>
> This is a hotfix for a potential zpool memory leak that could result in
> the existing zswap_decompress():
>
> mutex_unlock(&acomp_ctx->mutex);
>
> if (src != acomp_ctx->buffer)
> zpool_unmap_handle(zpool, entry->handle);
>
> Releasing the lock before the conditional does not protect the integrity of
> "src", which is set earlier under the acomp_ctx mutex lock. This poses a
> risk for the conditional behaving as intended, and consequently not
> unmapping the zpool handle, which could cause a zswap zpool memory leak.
>
> This patch moves the mutex_unlock() to occur after the conditional and
> subsequent zpool_unmap_handle(). This ensures that the value of "src"
> obtained earlier, with the mutex locked, does not change.
The commit log is too complicated and incorrect. It is talking about
the stability of 'src', but that's a local variable on the stack
anyway. It doesn't need protection.
The problem is 'acomp_ctx->buffer' being reused and changed after the
mutex is released. Leading to the check not being reliable. Please
simplify this.
>
> Even though an actual memory leak was not observed, this fix seems like a
> cleaner implementation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kanchana P Sridhar <kanchana.p.sridhar@intel.com>
> Fixes: 9c500835f279 ("mm: zswap: fix kernel BUG in sg_init_one")
> ---
> mm/zswap.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> index f6316b66fb23..58810fa8ff23 100644
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -986,10 +986,11 @@ static void zswap_decompress(struct zswap_entry *entry, struct folio *folio)
> acomp_request_set_params(acomp_ctx->req, &input, &output, entry->length, PAGE_SIZE);
> BUG_ON(crypto_wait_req(crypto_acomp_decompress(acomp_ctx->req), &acomp_ctx->wait));
> BUG_ON(acomp_ctx->req->dlen != PAGE_SIZE);
> - mutex_unlock(&acomp_ctx->mutex);
>
> if (src != acomp_ctx->buffer)
> zpool_unmap_handle(zpool, entry->handle);
Actually now that I think more about it, I think this check isn't
entirely safe, even under the lock. Is it possible that
'acomp_ctx->buffer' just happens to be equal to 'src' from a previous
decompression at the same handle? In this case, we will also
mistakenly skip the unmap.
It would be more reliable to set a boolean variable if we copy to
acomp_ctx->buffer and do the unmap, and check that flag here to check
if the unmap was done or not.
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&acomp_ctx->mutex);
> }
>
> /*********************************
>
> base-commit: 0e5bdedb39ded767bff4c6184225578595cee98c
> --
> 2.27.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-13 5:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-13 5:24 Kanchana P Sridhar
2024-11-13 5:34 ` Yosry Ahmed [this message]
2024-11-13 5:58 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-13 6:21 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-11-13 19:12 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-13 20:11 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-11-13 20:59 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-13 20:59 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-11-13 21:12 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-13 21:30 ` Johannes Weiner
2024-11-13 22:01 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-11-13 22:13 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-14 0:28 ` Nhat Pham
2024-11-14 1:56 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-14 5:11 ` Johannes Weiner
2024-11-14 6:37 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-14 7:24 ` Chengming Zhou
2024-11-15 21:12 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-15 21:49 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-11-19 19:22 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-19 19:27 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-11-19 19:41 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-19 19:51 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-11-19 22:35 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-19 23:44 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-11-20 0:00 ` Sridhar, Kanchana P
2024-11-20 2:31 ` Chengming Zhou
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='CAJD7tkZWDhOXyyZnEYFiS7F4tSV+z6TYXUYiEcrZrRuy_3R=ZA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=yosryahmed@google.com \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kanchana.p.sridhar@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nphamcs@gmail.com \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=usamaarif642@gmail.com \
--cc=vinodh.gopal@intel.com \
--cc=wajdi.k.feghali@intel.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.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