- Kernel - mailweb.openeuler.org

[PATCH OLK-6.6 v2 0/2] block: fix discard ioctl
by Li Nan 06 May '24

06 May '24

Li Nan (2): block: fix overflow in blk_ioctl_discard() block: check io size before submit discard block/blk-lib.c | 8 ++++++++ block/ioctl.c | 5 +++-- 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) -- 2.39.2

2 3

[PATCH OLK-5.10] mm: memcg: fix stale protection of reclaim target memcg
by Cai Xinchen 06 May '24

06 May '24

From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed(a)google.com> mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.2-rc1 commit adb8213014b25c7f1d75d5b219becaadcd695efb category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I9MD18 Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?… -------------------------------- Patch series "mm: memcg: fix protection of reclaim target memcg", v3. This series fixes a bug in calculating the protection of the reclaim target memcg where we end up using stale effective protection values from the last reclaim operation, instead of completely ignoring the protection of the reclaim target as intended. More detailed explanation and examples in patch 1, which includes the fix. Patches 2 & 3 introduce a selftest case that catches the bug. This patch (of 3): When we are doing memcg reclaim, the intended behavior is that we ignore any protection (memory.min, memory.low) of the target memcg (but not its children). Ever since the patch pointed to by the "Fixes" tag, we actually read a stale value for the target memcg protection when deciding whether to skip the memcg or not because it is protected. If the stale value happens to be high enough, we don't reclaim from the target memcg. Essentially, in some cases we may falsely skip reclaiming from the target memcg of reclaim because we read a stale protection value from last time we reclaimed from it. During reclaim, mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() is used to determine the effective protection (emin and elow) values of a memcg. The protection of the reclaim target is ignored, but we cannot set their effective protection to 0 due to a limitation of the current implementation (see comment in mem_cgroup_protection()). Instead, we leave their effective protection values unchaged, and later ignore it in mem_cgroup_protection(). However, mem_cgroup_protection() is called later in shrink_lruvec()->get_scan_count(), which is after the mem_cgroup_below_{min/low}() checks in shrink_node_memcgs(). As a result, the stale effective protection values of the target memcg may lead us to skip reclaiming from the target memcg entirely, before calling shrink_lruvec(). This can be even worse with recursive protection, where the stale target memcg protection can be higher than its standalone protection. See two examples below (a similar version of example (a) is added to test_memcontrol in a later patch). (a) A simple example with proactive reclaim is as follows. Consider the following hierarchy: ROOT | A | B (memory.min = 10M) Consider the following scenario: - B has memory.current = 10M. - The system undergoes global reclaim (or memcg reclaim in A). - In shrink_node_memcgs(): - mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() calculates the effective min (emin) of B as 10M. - mem_cgroup_below_min() returns true for B, we do not reclaim from B. - Now if we want to reclaim 5M from B using proactive reclaim (memory.reclaim), we should be able to, as the protection of the target memcg should be ignored. - In shrink_node_memcgs(): - mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() immediately returns for B without doing anything, as B is the target memcg, relying on mem_cgroup_protection() to ignore B's stale effective min (still 10M). - mem_cgroup_below_min() reads the stale effective min for B and we skip it instead of ignoring its protection as intended, as we never reach mem_cgroup_protection(). (b) An more complex example with recursive protection is as follows. Consider the following hierarchy with memory_recursiveprot: ROOT | A (memory.min = 50M) | B (memory.min = 10M, memory.high = 40M) Consider the following scenario: - B has memory.current = 35M. - The system undergoes global reclaim (target memcg is NULL). - B will have an effective min of 50M (all of A's unclaimed protection). - B will not be reclaimed from. - Now allocate 10M more memory in B, pushing it above it's high limit. - The system undergoes memcg reclaim from B (target memcg is B). - Like example (a), we do nothing in mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(), then call mem_cgroup_below_min(), which will read the stale effective min for B (50M) and skip it. In this case, it's even worse because we are not just considering B's standalone protection (10M), but we are reading a much higher stale protection (50M) which will cause us to not reclaim from B at all. This is an artifact of commit 45c7f7e1ef17 ("mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks") which made mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() only change the state without returning any value. Before that commit, we used to return MEMCG_PROT_NONE for the target memcg, which would cause us to skip the mem_cgroup_below_{min/low}() checks. After that commit we do not return anything and we end up checking the min & low effective protections for the target memcg, which are stale. Update mem_cgroup_supports_protection() to also check if we are reclaiming from the target, and rename it to mem_cgroup_unprotected() (now returns true if we should not protect the memcg, much simpler logic). Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221202031512.1365483-1-yosryahmed@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221202031512.1365483-2-yosryahmed@google.com Fixes: 45c7f7e1ef17 ("mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks") Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed(a)google.com> Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin(a)linux.dev> Cc: Chris Down <chris(a)chrisdown.name> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes(a)google.com> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes(a)cmpxchg.org> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy(a)infradead.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko(a)suse.com> Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun(a)bytedance.com> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb(a)google.com> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj(a)kernel.org> Cc: Vasily Averin <vasily.averin(a)linux.dev> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka(a)suse.cz> Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao(a)google.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm(a)linux-foundation.org> Conflicts: mm/vmscan.c Signed-off-by: Cai Xinchen <caixinchen1(a)huawei.com> --- include/linux/memcontrol.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++---------- mm/vmscan.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h index 24794b56eaaf..287c54141a90 100644 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h @@ -769,28 +769,32 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, struct mem_cgroup *memcg); -static inline bool mem_cgroup_supports_protection(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline bool mem_cgroup_unprotected(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { /* * The root memcg doesn't account charges, and doesn't support - * protection. + * protection. The target memcg's protection is ignored, see + * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() and mem_cgroup_protection() */ - return !mem_cgroup_disabled() && !mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg); - + return mem_cgroup_disabled() || mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg) || + memcg == target; } -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { - if (!mem_cgroup_supports_protection(memcg)) + if (mem_cgroup_unprotected(target, memcg)) return false; return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow) >= page_counter_read(&memcg->memory); } -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { - if (!mem_cgroup_supports_protection(memcg)) + if (mem_cgroup_unprotected(target, memcg)) return false; return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin) >= @@ -1378,12 +1382,19 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, { } -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline bool mem_cgroup_unprotected(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +{ + return true; +} +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { return false; } -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { return false; } diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 3d383c7126e3..044bf496885b 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2860,13 +2860,13 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(target_memcg, memcg); - if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg)) { + if (mem_cgroup_below_min(target_memcg, memcg)) { /* * Hard protection. * If there is no reclaimable memory, OOM. */ continue; - } else if (mem_cgroup_below_low(memcg)) { + } else if (mem_cgroup_below_low(target_memcg, memcg)) { /* * Soft protection. * Respect the protection only as long as -- 2.34.1

2 1

[PATCH OLK-5.10] drivers: base: transport_class: fix possible memory leak
by dinglongwei 06 May '24

06 May '24

From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang(a)huawei.com> mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.3-rc1 commit a86367803838b369fe5486ac18771d14723c258c category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I9MMNG Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?… -------------------------------- Current some drivers(like iscsi) call transport_register_device() failed, they don't call transport_destroy_device() to release the memory allocated in transport_setup_device(), because they don't know what was done, it should be internal thing to release the resource in register function. So fix this leak by calling destroy function inside register function. Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang(a)huawei.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221110102307.3492557-1-yangyingliang@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: dinglongwei <dinglongwei1(a)huawei.com> --- include/linux/transport_class.h | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/linux/transport_class.h b/include/linux/transport_class.h index 63076fb835e3..2efc271a96fa 100644 --- a/include/linux/transport_class.h +++ b/include/linux/transport_class.h @@ -70,8 +70,14 @@ void transport_destroy_device(struct device *); static inline int transport_register_device(struct device *dev) { + int ret; + transport_setup_device(dev); - return transport_add_device(dev); + ret = transport_add_device(dev); + if (ret) + transport_destroy_device(dev); + + return ret; } static inline void -- 2.17.1

2 1

[PATCH] mm: memcg: fix stale protection of reclaim target memcg
by Cai Xinchen 06 May '24

06 May '24

From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed(a)google.com> mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.2-rc1 commit adb8213014b25c7f1d75d5b219becaadcd695efb category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I9MD18 Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?… -------------------------------- Patch series "mm: memcg: fix protection of reclaim target memcg", v3. This series fixes a bug in calculating the protection of the reclaim target memcg where we end up using stale effective protection values from the last reclaim operation, instead of completely ignoring the protection of the reclaim target as intended. More detailed explanation and examples in patch 1, which includes the fix. Patches 2 & 3 introduce a selftest case that catches the bug. This patch (of 3): When we are doing memcg reclaim, the intended behavior is that we ignore any protection (memory.min, memory.low) of the target memcg (but not its children). Ever since the patch pointed to by the "Fixes" tag, we actually read a stale value for the target memcg protection when deciding whether to skip the memcg or not because it is protected. If the stale value happens to be high enough, we don't reclaim from the target memcg. Essentially, in some cases we may falsely skip reclaiming from the target memcg of reclaim because we read a stale protection value from last time we reclaimed from it. During reclaim, mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() is used to determine the effective protection (emin and elow) values of a memcg. The protection of the reclaim target is ignored, but we cannot set their effective protection to 0 due to a limitation of the current implementation (see comment in mem_cgroup_protection()). Instead, we leave their effective protection values unchaged, and later ignore it in mem_cgroup_protection(). However, mem_cgroup_protection() is called later in shrink_lruvec()->get_scan_count(), which is after the mem_cgroup_below_{min/low}() checks in shrink_node_memcgs(). As a result, the stale effective protection values of the target memcg may lead us to skip reclaiming from the target memcg entirely, before calling shrink_lruvec(). This can be even worse with recursive protection, where the stale target memcg protection can be higher than its standalone protection. See two examples below (a similar version of example (a) is added to test_memcontrol in a later patch). (a) A simple example with proactive reclaim is as follows. Consider the following hierarchy: ROOT | A | B (memory.min = 10M) Consider the following scenario: - B has memory.current = 10M. - The system undergoes global reclaim (or memcg reclaim in A). - In shrink_node_memcgs(): - mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() calculates the effective min (emin) of B as 10M. - mem_cgroup_below_min() returns true for B, we do not reclaim from B. - Now if we want to reclaim 5M from B using proactive reclaim (memory.reclaim), we should be able to, as the protection of the target memcg should be ignored. - In shrink_node_memcgs(): - mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() immediately returns for B without doing anything, as B is the target memcg, relying on mem_cgroup_protection() to ignore B's stale effective min (still 10M). - mem_cgroup_below_min() reads the stale effective min for B and we skip it instead of ignoring its protection as intended, as we never reach mem_cgroup_protection(). (b) An more complex example with recursive protection is as follows. Consider the following hierarchy with memory_recursiveprot: ROOT | A (memory.min = 50M) | B (memory.min = 10M, memory.high = 40M) Consider the following scenario: - B has memory.current = 35M. - The system undergoes global reclaim (target memcg is NULL). - B will have an effective min of 50M (all of A's unclaimed protection). - B will not be reclaimed from. - Now allocate 10M more memory in B, pushing it above it's high limit. - The system undergoes memcg reclaim from B (target memcg is B). - Like example (a), we do nothing in mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(), then call mem_cgroup_below_min(), which will read the stale effective min for B (50M) and skip it. In this case, it's even worse because we are not just considering B's standalone protection (10M), but we are reading a much higher stale protection (50M) which will cause us to not reclaim from B at all. This is an artifact of commit 45c7f7e1ef17 ("mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks") which made mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() only change the state without returning any value. Before that commit, we used to return MEMCG_PROT_NONE for the target memcg, which would cause us to skip the mem_cgroup_below_{min/low}() checks. After that commit we do not return anything and we end up checking the min & low effective protections for the target memcg, which are stale. Update mem_cgroup_supports_protection() to also check if we are reclaiming from the target, and rename it to mem_cgroup_unprotected() (now returns true if we should not protect the memcg, much simpler logic). Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221202031512.1365483-1-yosryahmed@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221202031512.1365483-2-yosryahmed@google.com Fixes: 45c7f7e1ef17 ("mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks") Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed(a)google.com> Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin(a)linux.dev> Cc: Chris Down <chris(a)chrisdown.name> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes(a)google.com> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes(a)cmpxchg.org> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy(a)infradead.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko(a)suse.com> Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun(a)bytedance.com> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb(a)google.com> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj(a)kernel.org> Cc: Vasily Averin <vasily.averin(a)linux.dev> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka(a)suse.cz> Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao(a)google.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm(a)linux-foundation.org> Conflicts: mm/vmscan.c Signed-off-by: Cai Xinchen <caixinchen1(a)huawei.com> --- include/linux/memcontrol.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++---------- mm/vmscan.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h index 24794b56eaaf..287c54141a90 100644 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h @@ -769,28 +769,32 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, struct mem_cgroup *memcg); -static inline bool mem_cgroup_supports_protection(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline bool mem_cgroup_unprotected(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { /* * The root memcg doesn't account charges, and doesn't support - * protection. + * protection. The target memcg's protection is ignored, see + * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() and mem_cgroup_protection() */ - return !mem_cgroup_disabled() && !mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg); - + return mem_cgroup_disabled() || mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg) || + memcg == target; } -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { - if (!mem_cgroup_supports_protection(memcg)) + if (mem_cgroup_unprotected(target, memcg)) return false; return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow) >= page_counter_read(&memcg->memory); } -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { - if (!mem_cgroup_supports_protection(memcg)) + if (mem_cgroup_unprotected(target, memcg)) return false; return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin) >= @@ -1378,12 +1382,19 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, { } -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline bool mem_cgroup_unprotected(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +{ + return true; +} +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { return false; } -static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *target, + struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { return false; } diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 3d383c7126e3..044bf496885b 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2860,13 +2860,13 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(target_memcg, memcg); - if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg)) { + if (mem_cgroup_below_min(target_memcg, memcg)) { /* * Hard protection. * If there is no reclaimable memory, OOM. */ continue; - } else if (mem_cgroup_below_low(memcg)) { + } else if (mem_cgroup_below_low(target_memcg, memcg)) { /* * Soft protection. * Respect the protection only as long as -- 2.34.1

1 0

[PATCH OLK-5.10 0/5] bugfix patches from mainline
by Xiongfeng Wang 06 May '24

06 May '24

Frederic Weisbecker (2): posix-cpu-timers: Force next expiration recalc after itimer reset posix-cpu-timers: Prevent spuriously armed 0-value itimer Jiri Slaby (1): x86/vdso: Use proper modifier for len's format specifier in extract() Rafael J. Wysocki (2): PM: runtime: Simplify locking in pm_runtime_put_suppliers() PM: runtime: Fix supplier device management during consumer probe arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso2c.h | 2 +- drivers/base/core.c | 10 ++++++++++ drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 10 +--------- kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c | 5 ++--- 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) -- 2.20.1

2 6

[PATCH openEuler-1.0-LTS] drivers: base: transport_class: fix resource leak when transport_add_device() fails
by dinglongwei 06 May '24

06 May '24

From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang(a)huawei.com> mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.3-rc1 commit e5da06b27ff5a148e42265c8e306670a9d913969 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I9MMNG Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?… -------------------------------- The normal call sequence of using transport class is: Add path: transport_setup_device() transport_setup_classdev() // call sas_host_setup() here transport_add_device() // if fails, need call transport_destroy_device() transport_configure_device() Remove path: transport_remove_device() transport_remove_classdev // call sas_host_remove() here transport_destroy_device() If transport_add_device() fails, need call transport_destroy_device() to free memory, but in this case, ->remove() is not called, and the resources allocated in ->setup() are leaked. So fix these leaks by calling ->remove() in transport_add_class_device() if it returns error. Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang(a)huawei.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221115031638.3816551-1-yangyingliang@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: dinglongwei <dinglongwei1(a)huawei.com> --- drivers/base/transport_class.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/base/transport_class.c b/drivers/base/transport_class.c index 5ed86ded6e6b..4c75dce60551 100644 --- a/drivers/base/transport_class.c +++ b/drivers/base/transport_class.c @@ -151,12 +151,27 @@ static int transport_add_class_device(struct attribute_container *cont, struct device *dev, struct device *classdev) { + struct transport_class *tclass = class_to_transport_class(cont->class); int error = attribute_container_add_class_device(classdev); struct transport_container *tcont = attribute_container_to_transport_container(cont); - if (!error && tcont->statistics) + if (error) + goto err_remove; + + if (tcont->statistics) { error = sysfs_create_group(&classdev->kobj, tcont->statistics); + if (error) + goto err_del; + } + + return 0; + +err_del: + attribute_container_class_device_del(classdev); +err_remove: + if (tclass->remove) + tclass->remove(tcont, dev, classdev); return error; } -- 2.17.1

2 1

[PATCH OLK-5.10] drivers: base: transport_class: fix resource leak when transport_add_device() fails
by dinglongwei 06 May '24

06 May '24

From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang(a)huawei.com> mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.3-rc1 commit e5da06b27ff5a148e42265c8e306670a9d913969 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I9MMNG Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?… -------------------------------- The normal call sequence of using transport class is: Add path: transport_setup_device() transport_setup_classdev() // call sas_host_setup() here transport_add_device() // if fails, need call transport_destroy_device() transport_configure_device() Remove path: transport_remove_device() transport_remove_classdev // call sas_host_remove() here transport_destroy_device() If transport_add_device() fails, need call transport_destroy_device() to free memory, but in this case, ->remove() is not called, and the resources allocated in ->setup() are leaked. So fix these leaks by calling ->remove() in transport_add_class_device() if it returns error. Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang(a)huawei.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221115031638.3816551-1-yangyingliang@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: dinglongwei <dinglongwei1(a)huawei.com> --- drivers/base/transport_class.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/base/transport_class.c b/drivers/base/transport_class.c index ccc86206e508..09ee2a1e35bb 100644 --- a/drivers/base/transport_class.c +++ b/drivers/base/transport_class.c @@ -155,12 +155,27 @@ static int transport_add_class_device(struct attribute_container *cont, struct device *dev, struct device *classdev) { + struct transport_class *tclass = class_to_transport_class(cont->class); int error = attribute_container_add_class_device(classdev); struct transport_container *tcont = attribute_container_to_transport_container(cont); - if (!error && tcont->statistics) + if (error) + goto err_remove; + + if (tcont->statistics) { error = sysfs_create_group(&classdev->kobj, tcont->statistics); + if (error) + goto err_del; + } + + return 0; + +err_del: + attribute_container_class_device_del(classdev); +err_remove: + if (tclass->remove) + tclass->remove(tcont, dev, classdev); return error; } -- 2.17.1

2 1

[PATCH OLK-6.6 0/2] Introduce CONFIG_ARCH_CUSTOM_NUMA_DISTANCE
by Hui Tang 06 May '24

06 May '24

This patchset allow arch adjust node_relaim_distance, as follow: Hui Tang (2): arm64/numa: Support node_reclaim_distance adjust for arch config: enable COBFIG_ARCH_CUSTOM_NUMA_DISTANCE for arm64 arch/arm64/Kconfig | 13 +++++ arch/arm64/configs/openeuler_defconfig | 1 + drivers/base/arch_numa.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+) -- 2.34.1

4 7

[PATCH OLK-5.10] memcg: fix possible use-after-free in memcg_write_event_control()
by Cai Xinchen 06 May '24

06 May '24

From: Tejun Heo <tj(a)kernel.org> stable inclusion from stable-v5.10.159 commit f1f7f36cf682fa59db15e2089039a2eeb58ff2ad category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I7NTXH Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id… -------------------------------- commit 4a7ba45b1a435e7097ca0f79a847d0949d0eb088 upstream. memcg_write_event_control() accesses the dentry->d_name of the specified control fd to route the write call. As a cgroup interface file can't be renamed, it's safe to access d_name as long as the specified file is a regular cgroup file. Also, as these cgroup interface files can't be removed before the directory, it's safe to access the parent too. Prior to 347c4a874710 ("memcg: remove cgroup_event->cft"), there was a call to __file_cft() which verified that the specified file is a regular cgroupfs file before further accesses. The cftype pointer returned from __file_cft() was no longer necessary and the commit inadvertently dropped the file type check with it allowing any file to slip through. With the invarients broken, the d_name and parent accesses can now race against renames and removals of arbitrary files and cause use-after-free's. Fix the bug by resurrecting the file type check in __file_cft(). Now that cgroupfs is implemented through kernfs, checking the file operations needs to go through a layer of indirection. Instead, let's check the superblock and dentry type. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Y5FRm/cfcKPGzWwl@slm.duckdns.org Fixes: 347c4a874710 ("memcg: remove cgroup_event->cft") Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj(a)kernel.org> Reported-by: Jann Horn <jannh(a)google.com> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin(a)linux.dev> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes(a)cmpxchg.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds(a)linux-foundation.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko(a)kernel.org> Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun(a)bytedance.com> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb(a)google.com> Cc: <stable(a)vger.kernel.org> [3.14+] Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm(a)linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Cai Xinchen <caixinchen1(a)huawei.com> --- include/linux/cgroup.h | 1 + kernel/cgroup/cgroup-internal.h | 1 - mm/memcontrol.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup.h b/include/linux/cgroup.h index 1456b23d3ba1..b7ffef090ea7 100644 --- a/include/linux/cgroup.h +++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ struct css_task_iter { struct list_head iters_node; /* css_set->task_iters */ }; +extern struct file_system_type cgroup_fs_type; extern struct cgroup_root cgrp_dfl_root; extern struct css_set init_css_set; diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-internal.h b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-internal.h index 6fc71b98209e..470f196b7f74 100644 --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-internal.h +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-internal.h @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@ extern struct mutex cgroup_mutex; extern spinlock_t css_set_lock; extern struct cgroup_subsys *cgroup_subsys[]; extern struct list_head cgroup_roots; -extern struct file_system_type cgroup_fs_type; /* iterate across the hierarchies */ #define for_each_root(root) \ diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index f5add1247f43..2aa0167863b7 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -5391,6 +5391,7 @@ static ssize_t memcg_write_event_control(struct kernfs_open_file *of, unsigned int efd, cfd; struct fd efile; struct fd cfile; + struct dentry *cdentry; const char *name; char *endp; int ret; @@ -5441,6 +5442,16 @@ static ssize_t memcg_write_event_control(struct kernfs_open_file *of, if (ret < 0) goto out_put_cfile; + /* + * The control file must be a regular cgroup1 file. As a regular cgroup + * file can't be renamed, it's safe to access its name afterwards. + */ + cdentry = cfile.file->f_path.dentry; + if (cdentry->d_sb->s_type != &cgroup_fs_type || !d_is_reg(cdentry)) { + ret = -EINVAL; + goto out_put_cfile; + } + /* * Determine the event callbacks and set them in @event. This used * to be done via struct cftype but cgroup core no longer knows @@ -5449,7 +5460,7 @@ static ssize_t memcg_write_event_control(struct kernfs_open_file *of, * * DO NOT ADD NEW FILES. */ - name = cfile.file->f_path.dentry->d_name.name; + name = cdentry->d_name.name; if (!strcmp(name, "memory.usage_in_bytes")) { event->register_event = mem_cgroup_usage_register_event; @@ -5473,7 +5484,7 @@ static ssize_t memcg_write_event_control(struct kernfs_open_file *of, * automatically removed on cgroup destruction but the removal is * asynchronous, so take an extra ref on @css. */ - cfile_css = css_tryget_online_from_dir(cfile.file->f_path.dentry->d_parent, + cfile_css = css_tryget_online_from_dir(cdentry->d_parent, &memory_cgrp_subsys); ret = -EINVAL; if (IS_ERR(cfile_css)) -- 2.34.1

2 1

[PATCH OLK-5.10 0/2] CVE-2024-26923
by Liu Jian 06 May '24

06 May '24

CVE-2024-26923 Kuniyuki Iwashima (1): af_unix: Suppress false-positive lockdep splat for spin_lock() in __unix_gc(). Michal Luczaj (1): af_unix: Fix garbage collector racing against connect() include/net/af_unix.h | 3 +++ net/unix/garbage.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.34.1

2 3