Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: debug code to verify rb_subtree_gap updates aresafe

[Rik van Riel]

On 11/12/2012 06:51 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> Using the trinity fuzzer, Sasha Levin uncovered a case where
> rb_subtree_gap wasn't correctly updated.
>
> Digging into this, the root cause was that vma insertions and removals
> require both an rbtree insert or erase operation (which may trigger
> tree rotations), and an update of the next vma's gap (which does not
> change the tree topology, but may require iterating on the node's
> ancestors to propagate the update). The rbtree rotations caused the
> rb_subtree_gap values to be updated in some of the internal nodes, but
> without upstream propagation. Then the subsequent update on the next
> vma didn't iterate as high up the tree as it should have, as it
> stopped as soon as it hit one of the internal nodes that had been
> updated as part of a tree rotation.
>
> The fix is to impose that all rb_subtree_gap values must be up to date
> before any rbtree insertion or erase, with the possible exception that
> the node being erased doesn't need to have an up to date rb_subtree_gap.
>
> This change: introduce validate_mm_rb() to verify that the rbtree does
> not include any stale rb_subtree_gap values before node insertion or
> erase, so as to avoid the issue where a subsequent vma_gap_update() would
> fail to propagate the rb_subtree_gap updates as high up as necessary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>


--
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/