linux-kernel - Re: why do we need vmalloc_sync

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:	Mon, 15 Jun 2015 22:28:57 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: Re: why do we need vmalloc_sync_all?


* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
> >>
> >> But again, the kernel no longer does this? do_page_fault() does 
> >> vmalloc_fault() without notify_die(). If it fails, I do not see how/why a 
> >> modular DIE_OOPS handler could try to resolve this problem and trigger 
> >> another fault.
> >
> > The same problem can happen from NMI handlers or machine check handlers. It's 
> > not necessarily tied to page faults only.
> 
> AIUI, the point of the one and only vmalloc_sync_all call is to prevent 
> infinitely recursive faults when we call a notify_die callback.  The only thing 
> that it could realistically protect is module text or static non-per-cpu module 
> data, since that's the only thing that's reliably already in the init pgd.  I'm 
> with Oleg: I don't see how that can happen, since do_page_fault fixes up vmalloc 
> faults before it calls notify_die.

Yes, but what I meant is that it can happen if due to an unrelated kernel bug and 
unlucky timing we have installed this new handler just when that other unrelated 
kernel bug triggers: say a #GPF crash in kernel code.

In any case it should all be mooted with the removal of lazy PGD instantiation.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/