linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] mm: add mkwrite param to vm_insert

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, 24 Jul 2017 09:23:57 -0600
From:   Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.r.jakobsson@...il.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Seung-Woo Kim <sw0312.kim@...sung.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] mm: add mkwrite param to vm_insert_mixed()

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 01:25:30PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > @@ -1658,14 +1658,28 @@ static int insert_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> >  	if (!pte)
> >  		goto out;
> >  	retval = -EBUSY;
> > -	if (!pte_none(*pte))
> > -		goto out_unlock;
> > +	if (!pte_none(*pte)) {
> > +		if (mkwrite) {
> > +			if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pte_pfn(*pte) != pfn_t_to_pfn(pfn)))
> 
> Is the WARN_ON_ONCE() really appropriate here? Your testcase with private
> mappings has triggered this situation if I'm right...

Yep, I think this WARN_ON_ONCE() is correct.  The test with private mappings
had collisions between read-only DAX mappings which were being faulted in via
insert_pfn(), and read/write COW page cache mappings which were being faulted
in by wp_page_copy().

I was hitting a false-positive warning when I had the WARN_ON_ONCE() in
insert_pfn() outside of the mkwrite case, i.e.:

	if (!pte_none(*pte)) {
		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pte_pfn(*pte) != pfn_t_to_pfn(pfn)))
			goto out_unlock;
		if (mkwrite) {
			entry = *pte;
			goto out_mkwrite;
		} else
			goto out_unlock;
	}

This was triggering when one thread was faulting in a read-only DAX mapping
when another thread had already faulted in a read-write COW page cache page.

The patches I sent out have the warning in the mkwrite case, which would mean
that we were getting a fault for a read/write PTE in insert_pfn() and the PFN
didn't match what was already in the PTE.

This can't ever happen in the private mapping case because we will never
install a read/write PTE for normal storage, only for COW page cache pages.
Essentially I don't think we should ever be able to hit this warning, and if
we do I'd like to get the bug report so that I can track down how it was
happening and make sure that it's safe.  It is in the mkwrite path of
insert_pfn() which is currently only used by the DAX code.

Does that make sense to you, or would you recommend leaving it out?  (If so,
why?)