linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fixup write permission of TLB on powerpc e500 core

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E21A841.9010005@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:03:29 -0400
From:	Shan Hai <haishan.bai@...il.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, tony.luck@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cmetcalf@...era.com,
	dhowells@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	walken@...gle.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fixup write permission of TLB on powerpc e500 core

On 07/15/2011 08:20 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 11:32 -0400, Shan Hai wrote:
>> I agree with you, the problem could be triggered by accessing
>> any user space page which has kernel read only permission
>> in the page fault disabled context, the problem also affects
>> architectures which depend on SW dirty/young tracking as
>> stated by Benjamin in this thread.
>>
>> In the e500 case, the commit 6cfd8990e27d3a491c1c605d6cbc18a46ae51fef
>> removed the write permission fixup from TLB miss handlers and left it to
>> generic code, so it might be right time to fixup the write permission here
>> in the generic code.
> But we can't. The must not modify the PTE from an interrupt context and
> the "atomic" variants of user accesses can be called in such contexts.
>
> I think the problem is that we try to actually do things other than just
> "peek" at user memory (for backtraces etc...) but actually useful things
> in page fault disabled contexts. That's bad and various archs mm were
> designed with the assumption that this never happens.
>

Yes I understood, the *here* above means 'generic code' like futex code,
I am sorry for my ambiguous description.

> If the futex case is seldom here, we could probably find a way to work
> around in that specific case.
>

That's what my patch wants to do.

> However, I -still- don't understand why gup didn't fixup the write
> permission. gup doesn't set dirty ?
>

Yep, gup doesn't set dirty, because when the page fault
occurs on the kernel accessing a user page which is
read only to the kernel the following conditions hold,
- the page is present, because its a shared page
- the page is writable, because demand paging
     sets up the pte for the current  process to so

The follow_page() called in the __get_user_page()
returns non NULL to its caller on the above mentioned
present and writable page, so the gup(.write=1) has no
chance to set pte dirty by calling handle_mm_fault

Thanks
Shan Hai
s
> Cheers,
> Ben.
>
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/