4.17-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Jing Xia <[email protected]>

commit 9f15bde671355c351cf20d9f879004b234353100 upstream.

It was reported that a kernel crash happened in mem_cgroup_iter(), which
can be triggered if the legacy cgroup-v1 non-hierarchical mode is used.

Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 6b6b6b6b6b6b8f
......
Call trace:
  mem_cgroup_iter+0x2e0/0x6d4
  shrink_zone+0x8c/0x324
  balance_pgdat+0x450/0x640
  kswapd+0x130/0x4b8
  kthread+0xe8/0xfc
  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20

  mem_cgroup_iter():
      ......
      if (css_tryget(css))    <-- crash here
            break;
      ......

The crashing reason is that mem_cgroup_iter() uses the memcg object whose
pointer is stored in iter->position, which has been freed before and
filled with POISON_FREE(0x6b).

And the root cause of the use-after-free issue is that
invalidate_reclaim_iterators() fails to reset the value of iter->position
to NULL when the css of the memcg is released in non- hierarchical mode.

Link: 
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Fixes: 6df38689e0e9 ("mm: memcontrol: fix possible memcg leak due to 
interrupted reclaim")
Signed-off-by: Jing Xia <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>

---
 mm/memcontrol.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -850,7 +850,7 @@ static void invalidate_reclaim_iterators
        int nid;
        int i;
 
-       while ((memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg))) {
+       for (; memcg; memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg)) {
                for_each_node(nid) {
                        mz = mem_cgroup_nodeinfo(memcg, nid);
                        for (i = 0; i <= DEF_PRIORITY; i++) {


Reply via email to