linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: get_user_pages(write,force) refuse to COW in shared areas

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: <20140425190931.GA11323@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:09:31 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com>,
	Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@...itl.com>,
	Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: get_user_pages(write,force) refuse to COW in
	shared areas

On 04/24, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > So, what do you think about the patch below? It is probably fine in any case,
> > but is there any "strong" reason to follow the gup's behaviour and forbid the
> > anon page in VM_MAYSHARE && !VM_MAYWRITE vma?
>
> I don't think there is a "strong" reason to forbid it.
>
> The strongest reason is simply that it's much safer if uprobes follows
> the same conventions as mm, and get_user_pages() happens to have
> forbidden that all along.
>
> The philosophical reason to forbid it is that the user mmapped with
> MAP_SHARED, and it's merely a kernel-internal detail that we flip off
> VM_SHARED and treat these read-only shared mappings very much like
> private mappings.  The user asked for MAP_SHARED, and we prefer to
> respect that by not letting private COWs creep in.
>
> We could treat those mappings even more like private mappings, and
> allow the COWs; but better to be strict about it, so long as doing
> so doesn't give you regressions.

Great, thanks a lot! I was worried I missed something subtle.

And I forgot to mention, there is another reason why I would like to
change uprobes to follow the same convention. I still think it would
be better to kill __replace_page() and use gup(FOLL_WRITE | FORCE)
in uprobe_write_opcode().


> > --- x/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > +++ x/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > @@ -127,12 +127,13 @@ struct xol_area {
> >   */
> >  static bool valid_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma, bool is_register)
> >  {
> > -	vm_flags_t flags = VM_HUGETLB | VM_MAYEXEC | VM_SHARED;
> > +	vm_flags_t flags = VM_HUGETLB | VM_MAYEXEC;
>
> I think a one-line patch changing VM_SHARED to VM_MAYSHARE would do it,
> wouldn't it?  And save you from having to export is_cow_mapping()
> from mm/memory.c.  (I used is_cow_mapping() because I had to make the
> test more complex anyway, just to exclude the case which had been
> oddly handled before.)

Indeed, thanks!

Oleg.

--
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/