linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

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:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:18:04 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:

> [Sorry for spamming, this one is the last attempt hopefully]
>
> On Mon 13-11-17 16:49:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Mon 13-11-17 16:16:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code
>> > > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements
>> > > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to
>> > > do vma lookup.
>> > 
>> > It turned out that this might be much more easier than I thought after
>> > all. It seems we can really handle that in the common code. This would
>> > mean that we are exposing a new functionality to the userspace though.
>> > Myabe this would be useful on its own though. Just a quick draft (not
>> > even compile tested) whether this makes sense in general. I would be
>> > worried about unexpected behavior when somebody set other bit without a
>> > good reason and we might fail with ENOMEM for such a call now.
>> 
>> Hmm, the bigger problem would be the backward compatibility actually. We
>> would get silent corruptions which is exactly what the flag is trying
>> fix. mmap flags handling really sucks. So I guess we would have to make
>> the flag internal only :/
>
> OK, so this one should take care of the backward compatibility while
> still not touching the arch code

I'm not sure I understand your worries about backward compatibility?

If we add a new mmap flag which is currently unused then what is the
problem? Are you worried about user code that accidentally passes that
flag already?

> diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h
> index 203268f9231e..03c518777f83 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h
> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@
>  # define MAP_UNINITIALIZED 0x0		/* Don't support this flag */
>  #endif
>  
> +#define MAP_FIXED_SAFE 0x2000000	/* MAP_FIXED which doesn't unmap underlying mapping */
> +

As I said in my other mail I think this should be a modifier to
MAP_FIXED. That way all the existing code that checks for MAP_FIXED (in
the kernel) works exactly as it currently does - like the check Khalid
pointed out.

And I think MAP_NO_CLOBBER would be a better name.

cheers