[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5svaztlptf4gs4sp6zyzycwjm2fnpd2xw3oirsls67sq7gq7wv@pwcktbixrzdo>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:37:37 +0100
From: Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@...il.com>
To: jeffxu@...omium.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, usama.anjum@...labora.com, corbet@....net,
Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, jeffxu@...gle.com,
jorgelo@...omium.org, groeck@...omium.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jannh@...gle.com, sroettger@...gle.com,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
deraadt@...nbsd.org, surenb@...gle.com, merimus@...gle.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] mseal: Two fixes for madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) when
sealed
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:51:04AM +0000, jeffxu@...omium.org wrote:
> From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
>
> Two fixes for madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) when sealed.
>
Please separate these fixes into two separate patches.
> For PROT_NONE mappings, the previous blocking of
> madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) is unnecessary. As PROT_NONE already prohibits
> memory access, madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) should be allowed to proceed in
> order to free the page.
I don't get it. Is there an actual use case for this?
> For file-backed, private, read-only memory mappings, we previously did
> not block the madvise(MADV_DONTNEED). This was based on
> the assumption that the memory's content, being file-backed, could be
> retrieved from the file if accessed again. However, this assumption
> failed to consider scenarios where a mapping is initially created as
> read-write, modified, and subsequently changed to read-only. The newly
> introduced VM_WASWRITE flag addresses this oversight.
We *do not* need this. It's sufficient to just block discard operations on read-only
private mappings. Sending a possible (fully untested) fix. If you like this approach
I can resend properly, or Andrew can pick it up, whatever floats people's boats.
----8<----
>From dc5ec662dcb79156f4bdc1cba2a2575dce905ffa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:21:10 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] mm/mseal: Disallow madvise discard on file-private sealed
mappings
Doing an operation such as MADV_DONTNEED on a file-private mapping may
forcibly alter data by discarding CoW'd, anon pages and replacing them
with page cache pages fresh from the filesystem.
As such, this somewhat bypasses the mseal of a read-only mapping, and
should be disallowed.
Signed-off-by: Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@...il.com>
Fixes: 8be7258aad44 ("mseal: add mseal syscall")
Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 6.11.y
---
mm/mseal.c | 13 +++++++++----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/mseal.c b/mm/mseal.c
index 28cd17d7aaf2..d053303c5542 100644
--- a/mm/mseal.c
+++ b/mm/mseal.c
@@ -36,10 +36,15 @@ static bool is_madv_discard(int behavior)
return false;
}
-static bool is_ro_anon(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
+static bool is_ro_private(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
- /* check anonymous mapping. */
- if (vma->vm_file || vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)
+ /*
+ * If shared, allow discard operations - it shouldn't
+ * affect the underlying data. Discard on private VMAs may
+ * forcibly alter data by replacing CoW'd anonymous pages
+ * with ones fresh from the page cache.
+ */
+ if (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)
return false;
/*
@@ -61,7 +66,7 @@ bool can_modify_vma_madv(struct vm_area_struct *vma, int behavior)
if (!is_madv_discard(behavior))
return true;
- if (unlikely(!can_modify_vma(vma) && is_ro_anon(vma)))
+ if (unlikely(!can_modify_vma(vma) && is_ro_private(vma)))
return false;
/* Allow by default. */
--
2.47.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists