On Mon, 14 Mar 2022, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2022/3/14 10:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> >
> >> user_shm_lock forgets to set allowed to 0 when get_ucounts fails. So
> >> the later user_shm_unlock might do the extra dec_rlimit_ucounts. Fix
> >> this by resetting allowed to 0.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 5ed44a401ddf ("do not limit locked memory when RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is RLIM_INFINITY")
> >> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > NAK. user_shm_lock() remembers to declare "int allowed = 0" on entry.
> >
>
> If lock_limit is RLIM_INFINITY, "allowed" will be set to 1. And if get_ucounts fails
> in some corner cases, "allowed" will remain to be 1 while the user_shm_lock ops indeed
> fails. Or am I miss something?
You are right, I am wrong: sorry.
Thanks for pointing now to that RLIM_INFINITY case.
But then the Fixes tag is wrong: it should be
Fixes: d7c9e99aee48 ("Reimplement RLIMIT_MEMLOCK on top of ucounts")
which introduced the possibility of error down there.
With that,
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Many thanks for comment.
>
> >> ---
> >> mm/mlock.c | 1 +
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
> >> index 29372c0eebe5..efd2dd2943de 100644
> >> --- a/mm/mlock.c
> >> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> >> @@ -733,6 +733,7 @@ int user_shm_lock(size_t size, struct ucounts *ucounts)
> >> }
> >> if (!get_ucounts(ucounts)) {
> >> dec_rlimit_ucounts(ucounts, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, locked);
> >> + allowed = 0;
> >> goto out;
> >> }
> >> allowed = 1;
> >> --
> >> 2.23.0
