| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 04:31:31 -0500
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Robin Holt <holt@....com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mmu_notifier: re-fix freed page still mapped in
secondary MMU
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:39:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> The commit 751efd8610d3 (mmu_notifier_unregister NULL Pointer deref
> and multiple ->release()) breaks the fix:
> 3ad3d901bbcfb15a5e4690e55350db0899095a68
> (mm: mmu_notifier: fix freed page still mapped in secondary MMU)
Can you describe how the page is still mapped? I thought I had all
cases covered. Whichever call hits first, I thought we had one callout
to the registered notifiers. Are you saying we need multiple callouts?
Also, shouldn't you be asking for a revert commit and then supply a
subsequent commit for the real fix? I thought that was the process for
doing a revert.
Thanks,
Robin Holt
>
> This patch reverts the commit and simply fix the bug spotted
> by that patch
>
> This bug is spotted by commit 751efd8610d3:
> ======
> There is a race condition between mmu_notifier_unregister() and
> __mmu_notifier_release().
>
> Assume two tasks, one calling mmu_notifier_unregister() as a result of a
> filp_close() ->flush() callout (task A), and the other calling
> mmu_notifier_release() from an mmput() (task B).
>
> A B
> t1 srcu_read_lock()
> t2 if (!hlist_unhashed())
> t3 srcu_read_unlock()
> t4 srcu_read_lock()
> t5 hlist_del_init_rcu()
> t6 synchronize_srcu()
> t7 srcu_read_unlock()
> t8 hlist_del_rcu() <--- NULL pointer deref.
> ======
>
> This can be fixed by using hlist_del_init_rcu instead of hlist_del_rcu.
>
> The another issue spotted in the commit is
> "multiple ->release() callouts", we needn't care it too much because
> it is really rare (e.g, can not happen on kvm since mmu-notify is unregistered
> after exit_mmap()) and the later call of multiple ->release should be
> fast since all the pages have already been released by the first call.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> mm/mmu_notifier.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> 1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> index be04122..606777a 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> @@ -40,48 +40,45 @@ void __mmu_notifier_release(struct mm_struct *mm)
> int id;
>
> /*
> - * srcu_read_lock() here will block synchronize_srcu() in
> - * mmu_notifier_unregister() until all registered
> - * ->release() callouts this function makes have
> - * returned.
> + * SRCU here will block mmu_notifier_unregister until
> + * ->release returns.
> */
> id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
> + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(mn, &mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list, hlist)
> + /*
> + * if ->release runs before mmu_notifier_unregister it
> + * must be handled as it's the only way for the driver
> + * to flush all existing sptes and stop the driver
> + * from establishing any more sptes before all the
> + * pages in the mm are freed.
> + */
> + if (mn->ops->release)
> + mn->ops->release(mn, mm);
> + srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
> +
> spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
> while (unlikely(!hlist_empty(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list))) {
> mn = hlist_entry(mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list.first,
> struct mmu_notifier,
> hlist);
> -
> /*
> - * Unlink. This will prevent mmu_notifier_unregister()
> - * from also making the ->release() callout.
> + * We arrived before mmu_notifier_unregister so
> + * mmu_notifier_unregister will do nothing other than
> + * to wait ->release to finish and
> + * mmu_notifier_unregister to return.
> */
> hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist);
> - spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
> -
> - /*
> - * Clear sptes. (see 'release' description in mmu_notifier.h)
> - */
> - if (mn->ops->release)
> - mn->ops->release(mn, mm);
> -
> - spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
> }
> spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>
> /*
> - * All callouts to ->release() which we have done are complete.
> - * Allow synchronize_srcu() in mmu_notifier_unregister() to complete
> - */
> - srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
> -
> - /*
> - * mmu_notifier_unregister() may have unlinked a notifier and may
> - * still be calling out to it. Additionally, other notifiers
> - * may have been active via vmtruncate() et. al. Block here
> - * to ensure that all notifier callouts for this mm have been
> - * completed and the sptes are really cleaned up before returning
> - * to exit_mmap().
> + * synchronize_srcu here prevents mmu_notifier_release to
> + * return to exit_mmap (which would proceed freeing all pages
> + * in the mm) until the ->release method returns, if it was
> + * invoked by mmu_notifier_unregister.
> + *
> + * The mmu_notifier_mm can't go away from under us because one
> + * mm_count is hold by exit_mmap.
> */
> synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
> }
> @@ -292,31 +289,35 @@ void mmu_notifier_unregister(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> BUG_ON(atomic_read(&mm->mm_count) <= 0);
>
> - spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
> if (!hlist_unhashed(&mn->hlist)) {
> + /*
> + * SRCU here will force exit_mmap to wait ->release to finish
> + * before freeing the pages.
> + */
> int id;
>
> + id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
> /*
> - * Ensure we synchronize up with __mmu_notifier_release().
> + * exit_mmap will block in mmu_notifier_release to
> + * guarantee ->release is called before freeing the
> + * pages.
> */
> - id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
> -
> - hlist_del_rcu(&mn->hlist);
> - spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
> -
> if (mn->ops->release)
> mn->ops->release(mn, mm);
> + srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
>
> + spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
> /*
> - * Allow __mmu_notifier_release() to complete.
> + * Can not use list_del_rcu() since __mmu_notifier_release
> + * can delete it before we hold the lock.
> */
> - srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
> - } else
> + hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist);
> spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
> + }
>
> /*
> - * Wait for any running method to finish, including ->release() if it
> - * was run by __mmu_notifier_release() instead of us.
> + * Wait any running method to finish, of course including
> + * ->release if it was run by mmu_notifier_relase instead of us.
> */
> synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
>
> --
> 1.7.7.6
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists