Nadav Amit 72639e6df4 fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c: change put_page/unlock_page order in hugetlbfs_fallocate() ... hugetlfs_fallocate() currently performs put_page() before unlock_page(). This scenario opens a small time window, from the time the page is added to the page cache, until it is unlocked, in which the page might be removed from the page-cache by another core. If the page is removed during this time windows, it might cause a memory corruption, as the wrong page will be unlocked. It is arguable whether this scenario can happen in a real system, and there are several mitigating factors. The issue was found by code inspection (actually grep), and not by actually triggering the flow. Yet, since putting the page before unlocking is incorrect it should be fixed, if only to prevent future breakage or someone copy-pasting this code. Mike said: "I am of the opinion that this does not need to be sent to stable. Although the ordering is current code is incorrect, there is no way for this to be a problem with current locking. In addition, I verified that the perhaps bigger issue with sys_fadvise64(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED) for hugetlbfs and other filesystems is addressed in 3a77d21480 ("mm: fadvise: avoid fadvise for fs without backing device")" Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170826191124.51642-1-namit@vmware.com Fixes: 70c3547e36 ("hugetlbfs: add hugetlbfs_fallocate()") Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@gmail.com> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>		2017-11-29 18:40:43 -08:00
..
inode.c	fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c: change put_page/unlock_page order in hugetlbfs_fallocate()	2017-11-29 18:40:43 -08:00
Makefile