On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 1:04 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03.01.23 20:53, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 4:00 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 28.12.22 20:42, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >>> free_anon_vma_name() is missing a check for anonymous shmem VMA which
> >>> leads to a memory leak due to refcount not being dropped. Fix this by
> >>> adding the missing check.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: d09e8ca6cb93 ("mm: anonymous shared memory naming")
> >>> Reported-by: syzbot+91edf9178386a07d06a7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/linux/mm_inline.h | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/mm_inline.h b/include/linux/mm_inline.h
> >>> index e8ed225d8f7c..d650ca2c5d29 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/mm_inline.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/mm_inline.h
> >>> @@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ static inline void free_anon_vma_name(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >>> * Not using anon_vma_name because it generates a warning if mmap_lock
> >>> * is not held, which might be the case here.
> >>> */
> >>> - if (!vma->vm_file)
> >>> + if (!vma->vm_file || vma_is_anon_shmem(vma))
> >>> anon_vma_name_put(vma->anon_name);
> >>
> >> Wouldn't it be me more consistent to check for "vma->anon_name"?
> >>
> >> That's what dup_anon_vma_name() checks. And it's safe now because
> >> anon_name is no longer overloaded in vm_area_struct.
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion, David. Yes, with the recent change that
> > does not overload anon_name, checking for "vma->anon_name" would be
> > simpler. I think we can also drop anon_vma_name() function now
> > (https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2-rc2/source/mm/madvise.c#L94)
> > since vma->anon_name does not depend on vma->vm_file anymore, remove
> > the last part of this comment:
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2-rc2/source/include/linux/mm_types.h#L584
> > and use vma->anon_name directly going forward. If all that sounds
> > good, I'll post a separate patch implementing all these changes.
> > So, for this patch I would suggest keeping it as is because
> > functionally it is correct and will change this check along with other
> > corrections I mentioned above in a separate patch. Does that sound
> > good?
>
> Works for me.
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you! Will post the followup cleanup patch shorly.
>
> for this one, as it fixes the issue.
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
