linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 PATCH 5/5] x86: check VM

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, 2 Jul 2018 11:10:23 -0700
From:   Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, willy@...radead.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        acme@...nel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
        jolsa@...hat.com, namhyung@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        hpa@...or.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 PATCH 5/5] x86: check VM_DEAD flag in page fault



On 7/2/18 10:57 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 02-07-18 10:24:27, Yang Shi wrote:
>>
>> On 7/2/18 6:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Mon 02-07-18 15:33:11, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>> On 02/07/2018 14:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Mon 02-07-18 14:26:09, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/07/2018 14:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>>> We already do have a model for that. Have a look at MMF_UNSTABLE.
>>>>>> MMF_UNSTABLE is a mm's flag, here this is a VMA's flag which is checked.
>>>>> Yeah, and we have the VMA ready for all places where we do check the
>>>>> flag. check_stable_address_space can be made to get vma rather than mm.
>>>> Yeah, this would have been more efficient to check that flag at the beginning
>>>> of the page fault handler rather than the end, but this way it will be easier
>>>> to handle the speculative page fault too ;)
>>> The thing is that it doesn't really need to be called earlier. You are
>>> not risking data corruption on file backed mappings.
>> OK, I just think it could save a few cycles to check the flag earlier.
> This should be an extremely rare case. Just think about it. It should
> only ever happen when an access races with munmap which itself is
> questionable if not an outright bug.
>
>> If nobody think it is necessary, we definitely could re-use
>> check_stable_address_space(),
> If we really need this whole VM_DEAD thing then it should be better
> handled at the same place rather than some ad-hoc places.
>
>> just return VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV for VM_DEAD vma,
>> and check for both shared and non-shared.
> Why would you even care about shared mappings?

Just thought about we are dealing with VM_DEAD, which means the vma will 
be tore down soon regardless it is shared or non-shared.

MMF_UNSTABLE doesn't care about !shared case.