linux-kernel - Re: process 'stuck' at exit.

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]

Date:	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:57:33 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: process 'stuck' at exit.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't we do something like the attached?
> 
> So I think that kernel/futex.c part of the patch might be a good idea,
> but on x86-64 (which is what Dave is running), the
> 
>         if (end >> __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT)
> 
> test in get_user_pages_fast() should have been equivalent. And even on
> 32-bit, we do check the _PAGE_USER bits in the page tables, so I guess
> it's all good on a get_user_pages_fast() side.
> 
> So never mind. It's not the address checking.
> 
> And I think I see what's up.
> 
> I think what happens is:
>  - get_user_pages_fast(address, 1, 1, &page) fails (because it's read-only)
>  - get_user_pages_fast(address, 1, 0, &page) succeeds and gets a large-page
>  - __get_user_pages_fast(address, 1, 1, &page) fails (because it's read-only).
> 
> so what triggers this is likely that Dave now does large-pages, and
> one of them is a read-only mapping.
> 
> So I would suggest replacing the second "1" in the
> __get_user_pages_fast() call with a "!ro" instead. So how about this
> second patch instead (the access_ok() move remains).

Yes, that's what I decoded as well.

But how does the access_ok() move do anything helpful here?

We really need it for the fastpath !fshared case, but for the fshared
case you actively break working code, because you force a VERIFY_WRITE
check into it. The VERIFY_WRITE is necessary for !fshared, because
there is no way that one thread can map the futex RO and the other RW,
right?

But for fshared it's legitimate to have a RO mapping if you just wait
for the futex. Note, that futexes are (ab)used as user space
waitqueues, so RO makes sense. And your move would break them.

If [__]get_user_pages_fast() does not do the right checks, then we
need to fix that and not add random access_ok() checks into the call
sites.

Thanks,

	tglx





--
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/