linux-kernel - Re: remap_file

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: <20140526133727.009C2E009B@blue.fi.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 May 2014 16:37:26 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jeff Smith <jsmith.lkml@...il.com>
Cc:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Kenny Simpson <theonetruekenny@...il.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: remap_file_pages() use

Jeff Smith wrote:
> >> Mirrored mapping is absolutely required by several
> >> independent proprietary platforms I'm aware of, and remap_file_pages()
> >> has historically been the only sane way to accomplish this. (i.e.,
> >> shm_open(), mmap(NULL, 2^(n+1) pages), remap_file_pages() on 2nd
> >> half).
> >
> > Em.. What's wrong with shm_open() + two mmap()s to cover both halfs?
> >
> > fd = shm_open();
> > addr1 = mmap(NULL, 2*SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> > addr2 = mmap(addr1 + SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED, fd, 0);
> >
> > Is there a reason why it doens't work?
> 
> Your addr2 mmap() call is a bit incorrect semantically and
> syntactically (you skipped the length arg).

My bad.

> The addr2 request will fail because mmap() does not implicitly munmap()
> occupied virtual address space.

Please, consider reading man page for mmap(2). MAP_FIXED in particular.

> Even if you did that, the following still has a race
> condition between the addr2 request and another thread grabbing the
> same virtual space, which nothing short of a lock on all threads'
> mmap()-ing logic can protect:
> 
> addr1 = mmap(NULL, 2*SIZE, PROT_READ, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> munmap(addr1 + SIZE, SIZE);
> /* race on virtual address space here, but n/a for remap_file_pages() ... */
> addr2 = mmap(addr1, SIZE, PROT_READ, MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED, fd, 0);

No. MAP_FIXED will do the job: it does munmap() + mmap() atomically from
userspace POV.

> >> but failing that, a reservation API would need
> >> to be created (possibly a MAP_RESERVE flag) that would set aside a
> >> region that could only be subsequently mapped via explicit
> >> address-requesting mmap() calls.
> >
> > I don't get this part.
> 
> I'm proposing that a call along the lines of mmap(NULL, len, prot,
> MAP_RESERVED | ..., fd, offset) could return a virtual address block
> that is -not- actually mapped but -is- protected from other mmap()
> calls not explicitly requesting the space via their addr parameters.
> Unfortunately, you'd also need to define separate semantics to
> un-reserving not-mapped space, etc.

You're inventing a wheel. All you need is there for ages. And in portable
way.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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/