linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rdma: don't make pages writeable if not requiested

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:09:22 -0600
From:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	"Michael R. Hines" <mrhines@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rdma: don't make pages writeable if not requiested

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 09:15:41PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:41:35PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 08:16:33PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 
> > > This is the one I find redundant. Since the write will be done by
> > > the adaptor under direct control by the application, why does it
> > > make sense to declare this beforehand?  If you don't want to allow
> > > local write access to memory, just do not post any receive WRs with
> > > this address.  If you posted and regret it, reset the QP to cancel.
> > 
> > This is to support your COW scenario - the app declares before hand to
> > the kernel that it will write to the memory and the kernel ensures
> > pages are dedicated to the app at registration time. Or the app says
> > it will only read and the kernel could leave them shared.
> 
> Someone here is confused. LOCAL_WRITE/absence of it does not address
> COW, it breaks COW anyway.  Are you now saying we should change rdma so
> without LOCAL_WRITE it will not break COW?

I am talking about 'from a spec' perspective - not what Linux does
today. The absence of LOCAL_WRITE is part of the specification to
support shared pages.

Pages can only be kept shared if all the ACCESS WRITE bits are clear -
today Linux always breaks the COW, but if you patch in the ability to
keep things shared then it must only happen when *all* the ACCESS
WRITE bits are clear.

> > The adaptor enforces the access control to prevent a naughty app from
> > writing to shared memory - think about mmap'ing libc.so and then using
> > RDMA to write to the shared pages. It is necessary to ensure that is
> > impossible.

> That's why it's redundant: we can't trust an application to tell us
> 'this page is writeable', we must get this info from kernel.  And so
> there's apparently no need for application to tell adaptor about
> LOCAL_WRITE.

The API design gives user space maximum flexibility, if it wants to
create an enforced no-write MR in otherwise writable pages by skipping
LOCAL_WRITE then it can do so.

The kernel's role in this should be to deny ibv_reg_mr with WRITE bits
set if the pages are not writable by the app - I don't know if it does
this today, it isn't critically important as long as the pages are
unshared.

Jason
--
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/