mm/mempolicy.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
When encountering any vma in the range with policy other than MPOL_BIND
or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, an error is returned without issuing a mpol_put
on the policy just allocated with mpol_dup().
This allows arbitrary users to leak kernel memory.
Fixes: c6018b4b2549 ("mm/mempolicy: add set_mempolicy_home_node syscall")
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17+
---
mm/mempolicy.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 61aa9aedb728..02c8a712282f 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -1540,6 +1540,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le
* the home node for vmas we already updated before.
*/
if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) {
+ mpol_put(new);
err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
break;
}
--
2.25.1
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> writes: > When encountering any vma in the range with policy other than MPOL_BIND > or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, an error is returned without issuing a mpol_put > on the policy just allocated with mpol_dup(). > > This allows arbitrary users to leak kernel memory. > Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> > Fixes: c6018b4b2549 ("mm/mempolicy: add set_mempolicy_home_node syscall") > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> > Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> > Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> > Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> > Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> > Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> > Cc: <linux-api@vger.kernel.org> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17+ > --- > mm/mempolicy.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c > index 61aa9aedb728..02c8a712282f 100644 > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > @@ -1540,6 +1540,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le > * the home node for vmas we already updated before. > */ > if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { > + mpol_put(new); > err = -EOPNOTSUPP; > break; > } > -- > 2.25.1
On Wed 14-12-22 17:21:10, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > When encountering any vma in the range with policy other than MPOL_BIND > or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, an error is returned without issuing a mpol_put > on the policy just allocated with mpol_dup(). > > This allows arbitrary users to leak kernel memory. > > Fixes: c6018b4b2549 ("mm/mempolicy: add set_mempolicy_home_node syscall") > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> > Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> > Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> > Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> > Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> > Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> > Cc: <linux-api@vger.kernel.org> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17+ Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Thanks for catching this! Btw. looking at the code again it seems rather pointless to duplicate the policy just to throw it away anyway. A slightly bigger diff but this looks more reasonable to me. What do you think? I can also send it as a clean up on top of your fix. --- diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c index 61aa9aedb728..918cdc8a7f0c 100644 --- a/mm/mempolicy.c +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c @@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le { struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; struct vm_area_struct *vma; - struct mempolicy *new; + struct mempolicy *new. *old; unsigned long vmstart; unsigned long vmend; unsigned long end; @@ -1521,30 +1521,28 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le return 0; mmap_write_lock(mm); for_each_vma_range(vmi, vma, end) { - vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); - vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); - new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); - if (IS_ERR(new)) { - err = PTR_ERR(new); - break; - } - /* - * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy - */ - if (!new) - continue; - /* * If any vma in the range got policy other than MPOL_BIND * or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY we return error. We don't reset * the home node for vmas we already updated before. */ - if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { + old = vma_policy(vma); + if (!old) + continue; + if (old->mode != MPOL_BIND && old->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { err = -EOPNOTSUPP; break; } + new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); + if (IS_ERR(new)) { + err = PTR_ERR(new); + break; + } + new->home_node = home_node; + vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); + vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new); mpol_put(new); if (err) -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
On 2022-12-15 02:51, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 14-12-22 17:21:10, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> When encountering any vma in the range with policy other than MPOL_BIND >> or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, an error is returned without issuing a mpol_put >> on the policy just allocated with mpol_dup(). >> >> This allows arbitrary users to leak kernel memory. >> >> Fixes: c6018b4b2549 ("mm/mempolicy: add set_mempolicy_home_node syscall") >> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> >> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> >> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> >> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> >> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> >> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> >> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> >> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> >> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> >> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> >> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> >> Cc: <linux-api@vger.kernel.org> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17+ > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > Thanks for catching this! > > Btw. looking at the code again it seems rather pointless to duplicate > the policy just to throw it away anyway. A slightly bigger diff but this > looks more reasonable to me. What do you think? I can also send it as a > clean up on top of your fix. I think it would be best if this comes as a cleanup on top of my fix. The diff is larger than the minimal change needed to fix the leak in stable branches. Your approach looks fine, except for the vma_policy(vma) -> old change already spotted by Aneesh. Thanks, Mathieu > --- > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c > index 61aa9aedb728..918cdc8a7f0c 100644 > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > @@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le > { > struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; > struct vm_area_struct *vma; > - struct mempolicy *new; > + struct mempolicy *new. *old; > unsigned long vmstart; > unsigned long vmend; > unsigned long end; > @@ -1521,30 +1521,28 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le > return 0; > mmap_write_lock(mm); > for_each_vma_range(vmi, vma, end) { > - vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); > - vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); > - new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); > - if (IS_ERR(new)) { > - err = PTR_ERR(new); > - break; > - } > - /* > - * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy > - */ > - if (!new) > - continue; > - > /* > * If any vma in the range got policy other than MPOL_BIND > * or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY we return error. We don't reset > * the home node for vmas we already updated before. > */ > - if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { > + old = vma_policy(vma); > + if (!old) > + continue; > + if (old->mode != MPOL_BIND && old->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { > err = -EOPNOTSUPP; > break; > } > > + new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); > + if (IS_ERR(new)) { > + err = PTR_ERR(new); > + break; > + } > + > new->home_node = home_node; > + vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); > + vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); > err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new); > mpol_put(new); > if (err) -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. https://www.efficios.com
On Thu 15-12-22 09:33:54, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 2022-12-15 02:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > Btw. looking at the code again it seems rather pointless to duplicate
> > the policy just to throw it away anyway. A slightly bigger diff but this
> > looks more reasonable to me. What do you think? I can also send it as a
> > clean up on top of your fix.
>
> I think it would be best if this comes as a cleanup on top of my fix. The
> diff is larger than the minimal change needed to fix the leak in stable
> branches.
>
> Your approach looks fine, except for the vma_policy(vma) -> old change
> already spotted by Aneesh.
This shouldn't have any real effect on the functionality. Anyway, here
is a follow up cleanup:
---
From f3fdb6f65fa3977aab13378b8e299b168719577c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:41:27 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: do not duplicate policy if it is not applicable
for set_mempolicy_home_node
set_mempolicy_home_node tries to duplicate a memory policy before
checking it whether it is applicable for the operation. There is
no real reason for doing that and it might actually be a pointless
memory allocation and deallocation exercise for MPOL_INTERLEAVE.
Not a big problem but we can do better. Simply check the policy before
acting on it.
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
---
mm/mempolicy.c | 28 ++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 02c8a712282f..becf41e10076 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le
{
struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
struct vm_area_struct *vma;
- struct mempolicy *new;
+ struct mempolicy *new, *old;
unsigned long vmstart;
unsigned long vmend;
unsigned long end;
@@ -1521,31 +1521,27 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le
return 0;
mmap_write_lock(mm);
for_each_vma_range(vmi, vma, end) {
- vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start);
- vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end);
- new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma));
- if (IS_ERR(new)) {
- err = PTR_ERR(new);
- break;
- }
- /*
- * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy
- */
- if (!new)
- continue;
-
/*
* If any vma in the range got policy other than MPOL_BIND
* or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY we return error. We don't reset
* the home node for vmas we already updated before.
*/
- if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) {
- mpol_put(new);
+ old = vma_policy(vma);
+ if (!old)
+ continue;
+ if (old->mode != MPOL_BIND && old->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) {
err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
break;
}
+ new = mpol_dup(old);
+ if (IS_ERR(new)) {
+ err = PTR_ERR(new);
+ break;
+ }
new->home_node = home_node;
+ vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start);
+ vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end);
err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new);
mpol_put(new);
if (err)
--
2.30.2
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
On 2022-12-15 09:49, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 15-12-22 09:33:54, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> On 2022-12-15 02:51, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >>> Btw. looking at the code again it seems rather pointless to duplicate >>> the policy just to throw it away anyway. A slightly bigger diff but this >>> looks more reasonable to me. What do you think? I can also send it as a >>> clean up on top of your fix. >> >> I think it would be best if this comes as a cleanup on top of my fix. The >> diff is larger than the minimal change needed to fix the leak in stable >> branches. >> >> Your approach looks fine, except for the vma_policy(vma) -> old change >> already spotted by Aneesh. > > This shouldn't have any real effect on the functionality. Anyway, here > is a follow up cleanup: > --- > From f3fdb6f65fa3977aab13378b8e299b168719577c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:41:27 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: do not duplicate policy if it is not applicable > for set_mempolicy_home_node > > set_mempolicy_home_node tries to duplicate a memory policy before > checking it whether it is applicable for the operation. There is > no real reason for doing that and it might actually be a pointless > memory allocation and deallocation exercise for MPOL_INTERLEAVE. > > Not a big problem but we can do better. Simply check the policy before > acting on it. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> > --- > mm/mempolicy.c | 28 ++++++++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c > index 02c8a712282f..becf41e10076 100644 > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > @@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le > { > struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; > struct vm_area_struct *vma; > - struct mempolicy *new; > + struct mempolicy *new, *old; > unsigned long vmstart; > unsigned long vmend; > unsigned long end; > @@ -1521,31 +1521,27 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le > return 0; > mmap_write_lock(mm); > for_each_vma_range(vmi, vma, end) { > - vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); > - vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); > - new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); > - if (IS_ERR(new)) { > - err = PTR_ERR(new); > - break; > - } > - /* > - * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy > - */ > - if (!new) > - continue; > - > /* > * If any vma in the range got policy other than MPOL_BIND > * or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY we return error. We don't reset > * the home node for vmas we already updated before. > */ > - if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { > - mpol_put(new); > + old = vma_policy(vma); > + if (!old) > + continue; > + if (old->mode != MPOL_BIND && old->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { > err = -EOPNOTSUPP; > break; > } > + new = mpol_dup(old); > + if (IS_ERR(new)) { > + err = PTR_ERR(new); > + break; > + } > > new->home_node = home_node; > + vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); > + vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); > err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new); > mpol_put(new); > if (err) -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. https://www.efficios.com
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes: > On Wed 14-12-22 17:21:10, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> When encountering any vma in the range with policy other than MPOL_BIND >> or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, an error is returned without issuing a mpol_put >> on the policy just allocated with mpol_dup(). >> >> This allows arbitrary users to leak kernel memory. >> >> Fixes: c6018b4b2549 ("mm/mempolicy: add set_mempolicy_home_node syscall") >> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> >> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> >> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> >> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> >> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> >> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> >> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> >> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> >> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> >> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> >> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> >> Cc: <linux-api@vger.kernel.org> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17+ > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > Thanks for catching this! > > Btw. looking at the code again it seems rather pointless to duplicate > the policy just to throw it away anyway. A slightly bigger diff but this > looks more reasonable to me. What do you think? I can also send it as a > clean up on top of your fix. > --- > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c > index 61aa9aedb728..918cdc8a7f0c 100644 > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > @@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le > { > struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; > struct vm_area_struct *vma; > - struct mempolicy *new; > + struct mempolicy *new. *old; > unsigned long vmstart; > unsigned long vmend; > unsigned long end; > @@ -1521,30 +1521,28 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le > return 0; > mmap_write_lock(mm); > for_each_vma_range(vmi, vma, end) { > - vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); > - vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); > - new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); > - if (IS_ERR(new)) { > - err = PTR_ERR(new); > - break; > - } > - /* > - * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy > - */ > - if (!new) > - continue; > - > /* > * If any vma in the range got policy other than MPOL_BIND > * or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY we return error. We don't reset > * the home node for vmas we already updated before. > */ > - if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { > + old = vma_policy(vma); > + if (!old) > + continue; > + if (old->mode != MPOL_BIND && old->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { > err = -EOPNOTSUPP; > break; > } > > + new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); new = mpol_dup(old); > + if (IS_ERR(new)) { > + err = PTR_ERR(new); > + break; > + } > + > new->home_node = home_node; > + vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); > + vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); > err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new); > mpol_put(new); > if (err) > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> writes: > When encountering any vma in the range with policy other than MPOL_BIND > or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, an error is returned without issuing a mpol_put > on the policy just allocated with mpol_dup(). > > This allows arbitrary users to leak kernel memory. > > Fixes: c6018b4b2549 ("mm/mempolicy: add set_mempolicy_home_node syscall") > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> > Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> > Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> > Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> > Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> > Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> > Cc: <linux-api@vger.kernel.org> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17+ Reviewed-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> Thanks! > --- > mm/mempolicy.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c > index 61aa9aedb728..02c8a712282f 100644 > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > @@ -1540,6 +1540,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le > * the home node for vmas we already updated before. > */ > if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { > + mpol_put(new); > err = -EOPNOTSUPP; > break; > }
On 12/14/22 14:21, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > When encountering any vma in the range with policy other than MPOL_BIND > or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, an error is returned without issuing a mpol_put > on the policy just allocated with mpol_dup(). > > This allows arbitrary users to leak kernel memory. > > Fixes: c6018b4b2549 ("mm/mempolicy: add set_mempolicy_home_node syscall") > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> > Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> > Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> > Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> > Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> > Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> > Cc: <linux-api@vger.kernel.org> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17+ Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> Thanks. > --- > mm/mempolicy.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c > index 61aa9aedb728..02c8a712282f 100644 > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > @@ -1540,6 +1540,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le > * the home node for vmas we already updated before. > */ > if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { > + mpol_put(new); > err = -EOPNOTSUPP; > break; > } -- ~Randy
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.