Add more sanity checks to the VMA that do_brk_flags() will expand.
Ensure the VMA matches basic merge requirements within the function
before calling can_vma_merge_after().
Drop the duplicate checks from vm_brk_flags() since they will be
enforced later.
Fixes: 2e7ce7d354f2 ("mm/mmap: change do_brk_flags() to expand existing VMA and add do_brk_munmap()")
Suggested-by: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Liam R. Howlett <[email protected]>
---
mm/mmap.c | 11 +++--------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
index a5eb2f175da0..41a2c42593e8 100644
--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -2946,9 +2946,9 @@ static int do_brk_flags(struct ma_state *mas, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
* Expand the existing vma if possible; Note that singular lists do not
* occur after forking, so the expand will only happen on new VMAs.
*/
- if (vma &&
- (!vma->anon_vma || list_is_singular(&vma->anon_vma_chain)) &&
- ((vma->vm_flags & ~VM_SOFTDIRTY) == flags)) {
+ if (vma && vma->vm_end == addr && !vma_policy(vma) && vma->anon_vma &&
+ can_vma_merge_after(vma, flags, NULL, NULL,
+ addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, NULL_VM_UFFD_CTX, NULL)) {
mas_set_range(mas, vma->vm_start, addr + len - 1);
if (mas_preallocate(mas, vma, GFP_KERNEL))
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -3035,11 +3035,6 @@ int vm_brk_flags(unsigned long addr, unsigned long request, unsigned long flags)
goto munmap_failed;
vma = mas_prev(&mas, 0);
- if (!vma || vma->vm_end != addr || vma_policy(vma) ||
- !can_vma_merge_after(vma, flags, NULL, NULL,
- addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, NULL_VM_UFFD_CTX, NULL))
- vma = NULL;
-
ret = do_brk_flags(&mas, vma, addr, len, flags);
populate = ((mm->def_flags & VM_LOCKED) != 0);
mmap_write_unlock(mm);
--
2.35.1
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 5:53 PM Liam Howlett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Add more sanity checks to the VMA that do_brk_flags() will expand.
> Ensure the VMA matches basic merge requirements within the function
> before calling can_vma_merge_after().
>
> Drop the duplicate checks from vm_brk_flags() since they will be
> enforced later.
Looks good to me, with one note:
> Fixes: 2e7ce7d354f2 ("mm/mmap: change do_brk_flags() to expand existing VMA and add do_brk_munmap()")
> Suggested-by: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Liam R. Howlett <[email protected]>
> ---
> mm/mmap.c | 11 +++--------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> index a5eb2f175da0..41a2c42593e8 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -2946,9 +2946,9 @@ static int do_brk_flags(struct ma_state *mas, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> * Expand the existing vma if possible; Note that singular lists do not
> * occur after forking, so the expand will only happen on new VMAs.
> */
> - if (vma &&
> - (!vma->anon_vma || list_is_singular(&vma->anon_vma_chain)) &&
> - ((vma->vm_flags & ~VM_SOFTDIRTY) == flags)) {
> + if (vma && vma->vm_end == addr && !vma_policy(vma) && vma->anon_vma &&
Why the "vma->anon_vma" check here? The old code was checking that the
existing VMA is not attached to more than one anon_vma; but the new
code instead checks that the existing VMA is attached to at least one
anon_vma, and then is_mergeable_anon_vma() checks that the VMA is not
attached to more than one anon_vma, so in effect the VMA has to be
attached to exactly one anon_vma. Is that intentional?
If not, maybe delete the "vma->anon_vma &&" - can_vma_merge_after()
already does the equivalent check of the old "(!vma->anon_vma ||
list_is_singular(&vma->anon_vma_chain))".
> + can_vma_merge_after(vma, flags, NULL, NULL,
> + addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, NULL_VM_UFFD_CTX, NULL)) {
> mas_set_range(mas, vma->vm_start, addr + len - 1);
> if (mas_preallocate(mas, vma, GFP_KERNEL))
> return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -3035,11 +3035,6 @@ int vm_brk_flags(unsigned long addr, unsigned long request, unsigned long flags)
> goto munmap_failed;
>
> vma = mas_prev(&mas, 0);
> - if (!vma || vma->vm_end != addr || vma_policy(vma) ||
> - !can_vma_merge_after(vma, flags, NULL, NULL,
> - addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, NULL_VM_UFFD_CTX, NULL))
> - vma = NULL;
> -
> ret = do_brk_flags(&mas, vma, addr, len, flags);
> populate = ((mm->def_flags & VM_LOCKED) != 0);
> mmap_write_unlock(mm);
> --
> 2.35.1
* Jann Horn <[email protected]> [221205 12:16]:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 5:53 PM Liam Howlett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Add more sanity checks to the VMA that do_brk_flags() will expand.
> > Ensure the VMA matches basic merge requirements within the function
> > before calling can_vma_merge_after().
> >
> > Drop the duplicate checks from vm_brk_flags() since they will be
> > enforced later.
>
> Looks good to me, with one note:
>
> > Fixes: 2e7ce7d354f2 ("mm/mmap: change do_brk_flags() to expand existing VMA and add do_brk_munmap()")
> > Suggested-by: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Liam R. Howlett <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > mm/mmap.c | 11 +++--------
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > index a5eb2f175da0..41a2c42593e8 100644
> > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > @@ -2946,9 +2946,9 @@ static int do_brk_flags(struct ma_state *mas, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > * Expand the existing vma if possible; Note that singular lists do not
> > * occur after forking, so the expand will only happen on new VMAs.
> > */
> > - if (vma &&
> > - (!vma->anon_vma || list_is_singular(&vma->anon_vma_chain)) &&
> > - ((vma->vm_flags & ~VM_SOFTDIRTY) == flags)) {
> > + if (vma && vma->vm_end == addr && !vma_policy(vma) && vma->anon_vma &&
>
> Why the "vma->anon_vma" check here? The old code was checking that the
> existing VMA is not attached to more than one anon_vma; but the new
> code instead checks that the existing VMA is attached to at least one
> anon_vma, and then is_mergeable_anon_vma() checks that the VMA is not
> attached to more than one anon_vma, so in effect the VMA has to be
> attached to exactly one anon_vma. Is that intentional?
That was not intentional.
>
> If not, maybe delete the "vma->anon_vma &&" - can_vma_merge_after()
> already does the equivalent check of the old "(!vma->anon_vma ||
> list_is_singular(&vma->anon_vma_chain))".
Yes, I will do that and send a v2.
>
> > + can_vma_merge_after(vma, flags, NULL, NULL,
> > + addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, NULL_VM_UFFD_CTX, NULL)) {
> > mas_set_range(mas, vma->vm_start, addr + len - 1);
> > if (mas_preallocate(mas, vma, GFP_KERNEL))
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > @@ -3035,11 +3035,6 @@ int vm_brk_flags(unsigned long addr, unsigned long request, unsigned long flags)
> > goto munmap_failed;
> >
> > vma = mas_prev(&mas, 0);
> > - if (!vma || vma->vm_end != addr || vma_policy(vma) ||
> > - !can_vma_merge_after(vma, flags, NULL, NULL,
> > - addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, NULL_VM_UFFD_CTX, NULL))
> > - vma = NULL;
> > -
> > ret = do_brk_flags(&mas, vma, addr, len, flags);
> > populate = ((mm->def_flags & VM_LOCKED) != 0);
> > mmap_write_unlock(mm);
> > --
> > 2.35.1