netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL

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:   Wed, 19 Oct 2016 19:01:27 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-cris-kernel@...s.com, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly
 pass FOLL_* flags

On Wed 19-10-16 09:49:43, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 02:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 19-10-16 09:58:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to
> >>> me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in fact check
> >>> mm != current->mm and imply that. Maybe there are some contexts which
> >>> wouldn't work, I haven't checked.
> >>
> >> This flag is set even when /proc/self/mem is used. I've not looked deeply into
> >> this flag but perhaps accessing your own memory this way can be considered
> >> 'remote' since you're not accessing it directly. On the other hand, perhaps this
> >> is just mistaken in this case?
> > 
> > My understanding of the flag is quite limited as well. All I know it is
> > related to protection keys and it is needed to bypass protection check.
> > See arch_vma_access_permitted. See also 1b2ee1266ea6 ("mm/core: Do not
> > enforce PKEY permissions on remote mm access").
> 
> Yeah, we need the flag to tell us when PKEYs should be applied or not.
> The current task's PKRU (pkey rights register) should really only be
> used to impact access to the task's memory, but has no bearing on how a
> given task should access remote memory.

The question I had earlier was whether this has to be an explicit FOLL
flag used by g-u-p users or we can just use it internally when mm !=
current->mm

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs