From: Nickolai Zeldovich <nickolai@csail.mit.edu>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>, Harry Yoo <harry@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Hao Li <hao.li@linux.dev>, Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Nickolai Zeldovich <nickolai@csail.mit.edu>
Subject: [PATCH v1] mempool: fix min_nr exceeding the elements array after concurrent resizes
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:25:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261016132510.789715-1-nickolai@csail.mit.edu> (raw)
mempool_resize() shrinks a pool by dropping pool->lock around every
free_fn() call and, once the pool holds no more than new_min_nr
elements, stores new_min_nr into pool->min_nr. new_min_nr was only
compared against pool->min_nr before the lock was first dropped, so that
store assumes nothing changed meanwhile. The kernel-doc allows
mempool_alloc()/mempool_free() to run while a resize is in progress and
the grow path also copes with concurrent resizes ("Raced, other resize
will do our work"), but the shrink path does not: while its lock is
dropped another resize may shrink the pool below new_min_nr and a third
one may grow it again to a size between the two, replacing
pool->elements with an array of exactly that size. Storing the stale
new_min_nr afterwards leaves pool->min_nr larger than the elements
array.
Interleaving on a pool with min_nr = curr_nr = 10:
CPU A: mempool_resize(pool, 8)
takes the lock, 8 <= 10 so it shrinks: remove_element(), drops the
lock, calls free_fn() and is preempted there
CPU B: mempool_resize(pool, 3)
completes: curr_nr = 3, min_nr = 3, elements still has 10 slots
CPU B: mempool_resize(pool, 5)
completes: elements = kmalloc_objs(5), min_nr = 5, curr_nr = 5
CPU A: retakes the lock, 8 < curr_nr (5) is false, stores min_nr = 8
while elements has 5 slots
Every later mempool_free() sees curr_nr < min_nr and add_element()
stores the returned element at elements[5], [6] and [7], past the end
of the 5-slot kmalloc allocation: a heap out-of-bounds write, i.e. slab
corruption, a KASAN report, or a crash in whichever unrelated object
sits next to the array. The invariant that breaks is that pool->min_nr
never exceeds the size of pool->elements; every other path that changes
min_nr or elements keeps it.
An in-tree caller can hit this: fs/smb/client resizes the global
cifs_req_poolp from cifs_demultiplex_thread() (grow, when a TCP session
is created) and from clean_demultiplex_info() (shrink, when one goes
away). The two are coordinated only through the atomic
tcpSesAllocCount, so mounts and unmounts racing on one client run the
resizes above concurrently; pool->free is kmem_cache_free() there and
the window is a preemption inside it. The other callers
(block/blk-zoned.c, drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c) serialise their
resizes.
The shrink path has stored new_min_nr unconditionally since
mempool_resize() was introduced, while the grow path has always
re-checked pool->min_nr after reacquiring the lock.
Re-check new_min_nr against pool->min_nr under the lock before storing
it. If a concurrent resize has shrunk the pool below new_min_nr in the
meantime, keep that resize's min_nr (and whatever array it installed),
as the grow path already does; otherwise the store is unchanged. The
elements the loop has already freed stay freed, which is right either
way because the pool's limit is now below new_min_nr.
Found by formal verification of mm/mempool.c against the kernel binary.
Reproduced with a userspace build of the affected functions in which the
free_fn() callback drives the interleaving above: before the fix min_nr
ends at 8 with a 5-slot array and the next mempool_free() writes past it
(AddressSanitizer heap-buffer-overflow); after the fix min_nr stays at 5
and the element is handed to free_fn(). Not reproduced on a running
kernel, where the window is a single preemption inside free_fn().
Assisted-by: LLM
Signed-off-by: Nickolai Zeldovich <nickolai@csail.mit.edu>
---
mm/mempool.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/mempool.c b/mm/mempool.c
index cb74e718b2c6..95533e2975ce 100644
--- a/mm/mempool.c
+++ b/mm/mempool.c
@@ -378,7 +378,9 @@ int mempool_resize(struct mempool *pool, int new_min_nr)
pool->free(element, pool->pool_data);
spin_lock_irqsave(&pool->lock, flags);
}
- pool->min_nr = new_min_nr;
+ /* Raced, the array may now be smaller than new_min_nr */
+ if (new_min_nr <= pool->min_nr)
+ pool->min_nr = new_min_nr;
goto out_unlock;
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool->lock, flags);
base-commit: 90201351a862182bdabfc1ad1c97b1e1b6ed5931
--
2.53.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-10-16 13:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-16 13:25 Nickolai Zeldovich [this message]
2026-10-16 15:46 ` Harry Yoo
2026-10-16 16:33 ` Nickolai Zeldovich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20261016132510.789715-1-nickolai@csail.mit.edu \
--to=nickolai@csail.mit.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=hao.li@linux.dev \
--cc=harry@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®