linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Describe race of direct read and fork for unaligned buffers

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]

Message-ID: <CAPa8GCCaGQdOZoWCCLBLNtOV5_VS+sNvdC_PzrWauF0gSyizYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 May 2012 17:01:40 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:	mtk.manpages@...il.com
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, mgorman@...e.de,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Describe race of direct read and fork for unaligned buffers

On 9 May 2012 15:35, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 6 May 2012 01:29, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> So, am I correct to assume that right text to add to the page is as below?
>>>>
>>>> Nick, can you clarify what you mean by "quiesced"?
>>>
>>> finished?
>>
>> Yes exactly. That might be a simpler word. Thanks!
>
> Thanks.
>
> But see below. I realize the text is still ambiguous.
>
>>>> [[
>>>> O_DIRECT IOs should never be run concurrently with fork(2) system call,
>>>> when the memory buffer is anonymous memory, or comes from mmap(2)
>>>> with MAP_PRIVATE.
>>>>
>>>> Any such IOs, whether submitted with asynchronous IO interface or from
>>>> another thread in the process, should be quiesced before fork(2) is called.
>>>> Failure to do so can result in data corruption and undefined behavior in
>>>> parent and child processes.
>>>>
>>>> This restriction does not apply when the memory buffer for the O_DIRECT
>>>> IOs comes from mmap(2) with MAP_SHARED or from shmat(2).
>>>> Nor does this restriction apply when the memory buffer has been advised
>>>> as MADV_DONTFORK with madvise(2), ensuring that it will not be available
>>>> to the child after fork(2).
>>>> ]]
>
> In the above, the status of a MAP_SHARED MAP_ANONYMOUS buffer is
> unclear. The first paragraph implies that such a buffer is unsafe,
> while the third paragraph implies that it *is* safe, thus
> contradicting the first paragraph. Which is correct?

Yes I see. It's because MAP_SHARED | MAP_ANONYMOUS isn't *really*
anonymous from the virtual memory subsystem's point of view. But that
just serves to confuse userspace I guess.

Anything with MAP_SHARED, shmat, or MADV_DONTFORK is OK.

Anything else (MAP_PRIVATE, brk, without MADV_DONTFORK) is
dangerous. These type are used by standard heap allocators malloc,
new, etc.
--
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/