On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:21:32 +0900
Mitsuo Hayasaka <mitsuo.hayasaka.hu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The /proc/vmallocinfo shows information about vmalloc allocations in vmlist
> that is a linklist of vm_struct. It, however, may access pages field of
> vm_struct where a page was not allocated. This results in a null pointer
> access and leads to a kernel panic.
>
> Why this happen:
> In __vmalloc_node_range() called from vmalloc(), newly allocated vm_struct
> is added to vmlist at __get_vm_area_node() and then, some fields of
> vm_struct such as nr_pages and pages are set at __vmalloc_area_node(). In
> other words, it is added to vmlist before it is fully initialized. At the
> same time, when the /proc/vmallocinfo is read, it accesses the pages field
> of vm_struct according to the nr_pages field at show_numa_info(). Thus, a
> null pointer access happens.
>
> Patch:
> This patch adds newly allocated vm_struct to the vmlist *after* it is fully
> initialized. So, it can avoid accessing the pages field with unallocated
> page when show_numa_info() is called.
Seems rather ugly, but I guess it's OK. vmalloc() is "special" in that
it fills the area with allocated pages, whereas all the
get_vm_area()-type callers don't do that.
>
> ...
>
> @@ -1381,17 +1403,20 @@ struct vm_struct *remove_vm_area(const void *addr)
> va = find_vmap_area((unsigned long)addr);
> if (va && va->flags & VM_VM_AREA) {
> struct vm_struct *vm = va->private;
> - struct vm_struct *tmp, **p;
> - /*
> - * remove from list and disallow access to this vm_struct
> - * before unmap. (address range confliction is maintained by
> - * vmap.)
> - */
> - write_lock(&vmlist_lock);
> - for (p = &vmlist; (tmp = *p) != vm; p = &tmp->next)
> - ;
> - *p = tmp->next;
> - write_unlock(&vmlist_lock);
> +
> + if (!(vm->flags & VM_UNLIST)) {
> + struct vm_struct *tmp, **p;
> + /*
> + * remove from list and disallow access to
> + * this vm_struct before unmap. (address range
> + * confliction is maintained by vmap.)
> + */
> + write_lock(&vmlist_lock);
> + for (p = &vmlist; (tmp = *p) != vm; p = &tmp->next)
> + ;
> + *p = tmp->next;
> + write_unlock(&vmlist_lock);
> + }
Is this needed? How can remove_vm_area() actually be called with a
VM_UNLIST area?
I think I'll let this patch cook in linux-next for a while and shall
tag it for backporting into 3.1.x later on.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>