linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] mm: softdirty: enable write notifications on VMAs after VM

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: <20140826151813.GB8952@moon>
Date:	Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:18:13 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Jamie Liu <jamieliu@...gle.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mm: softdirty: enable write notifications on VMAs
 after VM_SOFTDIRTY cleared

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 05:56:12PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > 
> > > It seems safe in vma-softdirty context. But if somebody else will decide that
> > > it's fine to modify vm_flags without down_write (in their context), we
> > > will get trouble. Sasha will come with weird bug report one day ;)
> > > 
> > > At least vm_flags must be updated atomically to avoid race in middle of
> > > load-modify-store.
> > 
> > Which race you mean here? Two concurrent clear-refs?
> 
> Two concurent clear-refs is fine. But if somebody else will exploit the
> same approch to set/clear other VM_FOO and it will race with clear-refs
> we get trouble: some modifications can be lost.

yup, i see

> Basically, it's safe if only soft-dirty is allowed to modify vm_flags
> without down_write(). But why is soft-dirty so special?

because how we use this bit, i mean in normal workload this bit won't
be used intensively i think so it's not widespread in kernel code

> Should we consider moving protection of some vma fields under per-vma lock
> rather use over-loaded mmap_sem?

Hard to say, if vma-softdirty bit is the reason then I guess no, probably
it worth to estimate how much profit we would have if using per-vma lock.
--
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/