Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/mlock: fix potential imbalanced rlimit ucounts
 adjustment
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
CC:     <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <hughd@google.com>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>
References: <20220314064039.62972-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
 <87h78036hl.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <82cf5aa8-a721-3ff3-7b09-54a66da0d506@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 20:17:57 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87h78036hl.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/3/14 23:21, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> writes:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> This fix looks correct.  But the ability for people to follow and read
> the code seems questionable.  I saw in v1 of this patch Hugh originally
> misread the logic.
> 
> Could we instead change the code to leave lock_limit at ULONG_MAX aka
> RLIM_INFINITY, leave initialized to 0, and not even need a special case
> of RLIM_INFINITY as nothing can be greater that ULONG_MAX?
> 

Many thanks for your advice. This looks good but it seems this results in different
behavior: When (memlock == LONG_MAX) && !capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK), we would fail now
while it will always success without this change. We should avoid this difference.
Or am I miss something? Maybe the origin patch is more suitable and simple?

Thanks.

> Something like this?
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
> index 8f584eddd305..e7eabf5193ab 100644
> --- a/mm/mlock.c
> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> @@ -827,13 +827,12 @@ int user_shm_lock(size_t size, struct ucounts *ucounts)
>  
>  	locked = (size + PAGE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>  	lock_limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK);
> -	if (lock_limit == RLIM_INFINITY)
> -		allowed = 1;
> -	lock_limit >>= PAGE_SHIFT;
> +	if (lock_limit != RLIM_INFINITY)
> +		lock_limit >>= PAGE_SHIFT;
>  	spin_lock(&shmlock_user_lock);
>  	memlock = inc_rlimit_ucounts(ucounts, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, locked);
>  
> -	if (!allowed && (memlock == LONG_MAX || memlock > lock_limit) && !capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK)) {
> +	if ((memlock == LONG_MAX || memlock > lock_limit) && !capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK)) {
>  		dec_rlimit_ucounts(ucounts, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, locked);
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> 
>>
>> Fixes: d7c9e99aee48 ("Reimplement RLIMIT_MEMLOCK on top of ucounts")
>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
>> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
>> ---
>> v1->v2:
>>   correct Fixes tag and collect Acked-by tag
>>   Thanks Hugh for review!
>> ---
>>  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;
> 
> Eric
> .
>