linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Fix vma_is

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, 16 Jul 2018 16:22:45 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Fix vma_is_anonymous() false-positives

On Mon 16-07-18 17:04:41, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 01:30:28PM +0000, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 10-07-18 13:48:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:48:20 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > vma_is_anonymous() relies on ->vm_ops being NULL to detect anonymous
> > > > VMA. This is unreliable as ->mmap may not set ->vm_ops.
> > > > 
> > > > False-positive vma_is_anonymous() may lead to crashes:
> > > > 
> > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > This can be fixed by assigning anonymous VMAs own vm_ops and not relying
> > > > on it being NULL.
> > > > 
> > > > If ->mmap() failed to set ->vm_ops, mmap_region() will set it to
> > > > dummy_vm_ops. This way we will have non-NULL ->vm_ops for all VMAs.
> > > 
> > > Is there a smaller, simpler fix which we can use for backporting
> > > purposes and save the larger rework for development kernels?
> > 
> > Why cannot we simply keep anon vma with null vm_ops and set dummy_vm_ops
> > for all users who do not initialize it in their mmap callbacks?
> > Basically have a sanity check&fixup in call_mmap?
> 
> As I said, there's a corner case of MAP_PRIVATE of /dev/zero.

This is really creative. I really didn't think about that. I am
wondering whether this really has to be handled as a private anonymous
mapping implicitly. Why does vma_is_anonymous has to succeed for these
mappings? Why cannot we simply handle it as any other file backed
PRIVATE mapping?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs