linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/6] mm: VMA sequence count

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]

Date:	Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:05:08 +0300
From:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, oleg@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	minchan@...nel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dave@...olabs.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/6] mm: VMA sequence count

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 04:22:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 03:36:16PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 03:44:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 02:15:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 02:53:04PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > > Em, no. In this case change_protection() will not touch the pte, since
> > > > > it's pte_none() and the pte_same() check will pass just fine.
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, that's what you meant. Yes that's a problem, yes vm_page_prot
> > > > needs wrapping too.
> > > 
> > > Maybe also vm_policy, is there anything else that can change while a vma
> > > lives?
> > 
> >  - vm_flags, obviously;
> 
> Do those ever change?

The flags which can change (probably incomplete):

 - prot-related: VM_READ, VM_WRITE, VM_EXEC -- mprotect();
 - VM_LOCKED - mlock();
 - VM_SEQ_READ, VM_RAND_READ, VM_DONTCOPY, VM_DONTDUMP, VM_HUGEPAGE,
   VM_NOHUGEPAGE, VM_MERGEABLE -- madvise();
 - VM_SOFTDIRTY -- through procfs;
 
> The only thing that jumps out is the VM_LOCKED thing and that should not
> really matter one way or the other, but sure can do.

I would not be that sure about VM_LOCKED. Consider munlock() vs. write
fault race.

static int do_wp_page(struct fault_env *fe)
        __releases(ptl)
{
...
err:
	if (old_page) {
		/*
		 * Don't let another task, with possibly unlocked vma,
		 * keep the mlocked page.
		 */
		if ((ret & VM_FAULT_WRITE) && (fe->vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)) {
			lock_page(old_page);	/* LRU manipulation */
			munlock_vma_page(old_page);
			unlock_page(old_page);
		}
		page_cache_release(old_page);
	}
	return ret;
...
}

The page can leak out mlocked, iiuc.

Some other flags can be problematic too.

> In any case, yes I'll go include them.

I hope it will not hurt single-threaded workloads even more. :-/

-- 
 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/