linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] mm/futex: Fix futex writes on archs with SW tracking of dirty & young

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:59:38 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Shan Hai <haishan.bai@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, paulus@...ba.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
	cmetcalf@...era.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] mm/futex: Fix futex writes on archs with SW
 tracking of dirty & young

On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:52:06 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 15:36 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:29:22 +1000
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > The futex code currently attempts to write to user memory within
> > > a pagefault disabled section, and if that fails, tries to fix it
> > > up using get_user_pages().
> > > 
> > > This doesn't work on archs where the dirty and young bits are
> > > maintained by software, since they will gate access permission
> > > in the TLB, and will not be updated by gup().
> > > 
> > > In addition, there's an expectation on some archs that a
> > > spurious write fault triggers a local TLB flush, and that is
> > > missing from the picture as well.
> > > 
> > > I decided that adding those "features" to gup() would be too much
> > > for this already too complex function, and instead added a new
> > > simpler fixup_user_fault() which is essentially a wrapper around
> > > handle_mm_fault() which the futex code can call.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Shan, can you test this ? It might not fix the problem
> > 
> > um, what problem.  There's no description here of the user-visible
> > effects of the bug hence it's hard to work out what kernel version(s)
> > should receive this patch.
> 
> Shan could give you an actual example (it was in the previous thread),
> but basically, livelock as the kernel keeps trying and trying the
> in_atomic op and never resolves it.
>  
> > What kernel version(s) should receive this patch?
> 
> I haven't dug. Probably anything it applies on as far as we did that
> trick of atomic + gup() for futex.

You're not understanding me.

I need a good reason to merge this into 3.0.

The -stable maintainers need even better reasons to merge this into
earlier kernels.

Please provide those reasons!

(Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt, 4th bullet)

(And it's not just me and -stable maintainers.  Distro maintainers will
also look at this patch and wonder whether they should merge it)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/