linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix races between address_space dereference and free in page

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:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:38:04 +0800
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix races between address_space dereference and free in page_evicatable

Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> writes:

> Hi Jan,
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:57:35AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Hi Minchan,
>> 
>> On Sun 18-02-18 18:22:45, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 04:12:27PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> > > From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
>> > > 
>> > > When page_mapping() is called and the mapping is dereferenced in
>> > > page_evicatable() through shrink_active_list(), it is possible for the
>> > > inode to be truncated and the embedded address space to be freed at
>> > > the same time.  This may lead to the following race.
>> > > 
>> > > CPU1                                                CPU2
>> > > 
>> > > truncate(inode)                                     shrink_active_list()
>> > >   ...                                                 page_evictable(page)
>> > >   truncate_inode_page(mapping, page);
>> > >     delete_from_page_cache(page)
>> > >       spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
>> > >         __delete_from_page_cache(page, NULL)
>> > >           page_cache_tree_delete(..)
>> > >             ...                                         mapping = page_mapping(page);
>> > >             page->mapping = NULL;
>> > >             ...
>> > >       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
>> > >       page_cache_free_page(mapping, page)
>> > >         put_page(page)
>> > >           if (put_page_testzero(page)) -> false
>> > > - inode now has no pages and can be freed including embedded address_space
>> > > 
>> > >                                                         mapping_unevictable(mapping)
>> > > 							  test_bit(AS_UNEVICTABLE, &mapping->flags);
>> > > - we've dereferenced mapping which is potentially already free.
>> > > 
>> > > Similar race exists between swap cache freeing and page_evicatable() too.
>> > > 
>> > > The address_space in inode and swap cache will be freed after a RCU
>> > > grace period.  So the races are fixed via enclosing the page_mapping()
>> > > and address_space usage in rcu_read_lock/unlock().  Some comments are
>> > > added in code to make it clear what is protected by the RCU read lock.
>> > 
>> > Is it always true for every FSes, even upcoming FSes?
>> > IOW, do we have any strict rule FS folks must use RCU(i.e., call_rcu)
>> > to destroy inode?
>> > 
>> > Let's cc linux-fs.
>> 
>> That's actually a good question. Pathname lookup relies on inodes being
>> protected by RCU so "normal" filesystems definitely need to use RCU freeing
>> of inodes. OTOH a filesystem could in theory refuse any attempt for RCU
>> pathname walk (in its .d_revalidate/.d_compare callback) and then get away
>> with freeing its inodes normally AFAICT. I don't see that happening
>> anywhere in the tree but in theory it is possible with some effort... But
>> frankly I don't see a good reason for that so all we should do is to
>> document that .destroy_inode needs to free the inode structure through RCU
>> if it uses page cache? Al?
>
> Yub, it would be much better. However, how does this patch fix the problem?
> Although it can make only page_evictable safe, we could go with the page
> further and finally uses page->mapping, again.
> For instance,
>
> shrink_active_list
> 	page_evictable();
> 	..
> 	page_referened()
> 		page_rmapping
> 			page->mapping

This only checks the value of page->mapping, not deference
page->mapping.  So it should be safe.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> I think caller should lock the page to protect entire operation, which
> have been used more widely to pin a address_space.
>
> Thanks.