5.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Vlastimil Babka vbabka@suse.cz
commit 2e25644e8da4ed3a27e7b8315aaae74660be72dc upstream.
Syzbot with KMSAN reports (excerpt):
================================================================== BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in mpol_rebind_policy mm/mempolicy.c:353 [inline] BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in mpol_rebind_mm+0x249/0x370 mm/mempolicy.c:384 CPU: 1 PID: 17420 Comm: syz-executor4 Not tainted 4.20.0-rc7+ #15 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011 Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline] dump_stack+0x173/0x1d0 lib/dump_stack.c:113 kmsan_report+0x12e/0x2a0 mm/kmsan/kmsan.c:613 __msan_warning+0x82/0xf0 mm/kmsan/kmsan_instr.c:295 mpol_rebind_policy mm/mempolicy.c:353 [inline] mpol_rebind_mm+0x249/0x370 mm/mempolicy.c:384 update_tasks_nodemask+0x608/0xca0 kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c:1120 update_nodemasks_hier kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c:1185 [inline] update_nodemask kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c:1253 [inline] cpuset_write_resmask+0x2a98/0x34b0 kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c:1728
...
Uninit was created at: kmsan_save_stack_with_flags mm/kmsan/kmsan.c:204 [inline] kmsan_internal_poison_shadow+0x92/0x150 mm/kmsan/kmsan.c:158 kmsan_kmalloc+0xa6/0x130 mm/kmsan/kmsan_hooks.c:176 kmem_cache_alloc+0x572/0xb90 mm/slub.c:2777 mpol_new mm/mempolicy.c:276 [inline] do_mbind mm/mempolicy.c:1180 [inline] kernel_mbind+0x8a7/0x31a0 mm/mempolicy.c:1347 __do_sys_mbind mm/mempolicy.c:1354 [inline]
As it's difficult to report where exactly the uninit value resides in the mempolicy object, we have to guess a bit. mm/mempolicy.c:353 contains this part of mpol_rebind_policy():
if (!mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol) && nodes_equal(pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed, *newmask))
"mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol)" is testing pol->flags, which I couldn't ever see being uninitialized after leaving mpol_new(). So I'll guess it's actually about accessing pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed on line 354, but still part of statement starting on line 353.
For w.cpuset_mems_allowed to be not initialized, and the nodes_equal() reachable for a mempolicy where mpol_set_nodemask() is called in do_mbind(), it seems the only possibility is a MPOL_PREFERRED policy with empty set of nodes, i.e. MPOL_LOCAL equivalent, with MPOL_F_LOCAL flag. Let's exclude such policies from the nodes_equal() check. Note the uninit access should be benign anyway, as rebinding this kind of policy is always a no-op. Therefore no actual need for stable inclusion.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/a71997c3-e8ae-a787-d5ce-3db05768b27c@suse.cz Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/73da3e9c-cc84-509e-17d9-0c434bb9967d@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka vbabka@suse.cz Reported-by: syzbot+b19c2dc2c990ea657a71@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Cc: Alexander Potapenko glider@google.com Cc: Dmitry Vyukov dvyukov@google.com Cc: Andrea Arcangeli aarcange@redhat.com Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com Cc: Michal Hocko mhocko@suse.com Cc: David Rientjes rientjes@google.com Cc: Yisheng Xie xieyisheng1@huawei.com Cc: zhong jiang zhongjiang@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
--- mm/mempolicy.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c @@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ static void mpol_rebind_policy(struct me { if (!pol) return; - if (!mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol) && + if (!mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol) && !(pol->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL) && nodes_equal(pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed, *newmask)) return;