| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Ryan Lortie <desrt@...rt.ca>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>, john.stultz@...aro.org,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
Daniel Mack <zonque@...il.com>, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] shm: wait for pins to be released when sealing
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, David Herrmann wrote:
> If we set SEAL_WRITE on a file, we must make sure there cannot be any
> ongoing write-operations on the file. For write() calls, we simply lock
> the inode mutex, for mmap() we simply verify there're no writable
> mappings. However, there might be pages pinned by AIO, Direct-IO and
> similar operations via GUP. We must make sure those do not write to the
> memfd file after we set SEAL_WRITE.
>
> As there is no way to notify GUP users to drop pages or to wait for them
> to be done, we implement the wait ourself: When setting SEAL_WRITE, we
> check all pages for their ref-count. If it's bigger than 1, we know
> there's some user of the page. We then mark the page and wait for up to
> 150ms for those ref-counts to be dropped. If the ref-counts are not
> dropped in time, we refuse the seal operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
I'd have moved this one up before the testing ones - except changing
the sequence in between postings can be confusing. I'd be happy if
akpm happened to move it up - but unconcerned if he did not.
> ---
> mm/shmem.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 109 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> index 770e072..df1aceb 100644
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -1780,9 +1780,117 @@ static loff_t shmem_file_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence)
> return offset;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * We need a tag: a new tag would expand every radix_tree_node by 8 bytes,
> + * so reuse a tag which we firmly believe is never set or cleared on shmem.
> + */
> +#define SHMEM_TAG_PINNED PAGECACHE_TAG_TOWRITE
> +#define LAST_SCAN 4 /* about 150ms max */
> +
> +static void shmem_tag_pins(struct address_space *mapping)
> +{
> + struct radix_tree_iter iter;
> + void **slot;
> + pgoff_t start;
> + struct page *page;
> +
> + lru_add_drain();
> + start = 0;
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> +restart:
> + radix_tree_for_each_slot(slot, &mapping->page_tree, &iter, start) {
> + page = radix_tree_deref_slot(slot);
> + if (!page || radix_tree_exception(page)) {
> + if (radix_tree_deref_retry(page))
> + goto restart;
> + } else if (page_count(page) - page_mapcount(page) > 1) {
> + spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> + radix_tree_tag_set(&mapping->page_tree, iter.index,
> + SHMEM_TAG_PINNED);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> + }
> +
> + if (need_resched()) {
> + cond_resched_rcu();
> + start = iter.index + 1;
> + goto restart;
> + }
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Setting SEAL_WRITE requires us to verify there's no pending writer. However,
> + * via get_user_pages(), drivers might have some pending I/O without any active
> + * user-space mappings (eg., direct-IO, AIO). Therefore, we look at all pages
> + * and see whether it has an elevated ref-count. If so, we tag them and wait for
> + * them to be dropped.
> + * The caller must guarantee that no new user will acquire writable references
> + * to those pages to avoid races.
> + */
> static int shmem_wait_for_pins(struct address_space *mapping)
> {
> - return 0;
> + struct radix_tree_iter iter;
> + void **slot;
> + pgoff_t start;
> + struct page *page;
> + int error, scan;
> +
> + shmem_tag_pins(mapping);
> +
> + error = 0;
> + for (scan = 0; scan <= LAST_SCAN; scan++) {
> + if (!radix_tree_tagged(&mapping->page_tree, SHMEM_TAG_PINNED))
> + break;
> +
> + if (!scan)
> + lru_add_drain_all();
> + else if (schedule_timeout_killable((HZ << scan) / 200))
> + scan = LAST_SCAN;
> +
> + start = 0;
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +restart:
> + radix_tree_for_each_tagged(slot, &mapping->page_tree, &iter,
> + start, SHMEM_TAG_PINNED) {
> +
> + page = radix_tree_deref_slot(slot);
> + if (radix_tree_exception(page)) {
> + if (radix_tree_deref_retry(page))
> + goto restart;
> +
> + page = NULL;
> + }
> +
> + if (page &&
> + page_count(page) - page_mapcount(page) != 1) {
> + if (scan < LAST_SCAN)
> + goto continue_resched;
> +
> + /*
> + * On the last scan, we clean up all those tags
> + * we inserted; but make a note that we still
> + * found pages pinned.
> + */
> + error = -EBUSY;
> + }
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> + radix_tree_tag_clear(&mapping->page_tree,
> + iter.index, SHMEM_TAG_PINNED);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> +continue_resched:
> + if (need_resched()) {
> + cond_resched_rcu();
> + start = iter.index + 1;
> + goto restart;
> + }
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + }
> +
> + return error;
> }
>
> #define F_ALL_SEALS (F_SEAL_SEAL | \
> --
> 2.0.2
>
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists