linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 0/7] Allow user to request memory to be locked on page fault

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: <55B79B7F.9010604@suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:10:55 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/7] Allow user to request memory to be locked on page
 fault

On 07/28/2015 03:49 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
>

[...]

> The only
> remaining question I have is should we have 2 new mlockall flags so that
> the caller can explicitly set VM_LOCKONFAULT in the mm->def_flags vs
> locking all current VMAs on fault.  I ask because if the user wants to
> lock all current VMAs the old way, but all future VMAs on fault they
> have to call mlockall() twice:
>
> 	mlockall(MCL_CURRENT);
> 	mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE | MCL_ONFAULT);
>
> This has the side effect of converting all the current VMAs to
> VM_LOCKONFAULT, but because they were all made present and locked in the
> first call, this should not matter in most cases.

Shouldn't the user be able to do this?

mlockall(MCL_CURRENT)
mlockall(MCL_FUTURE | MCL_ONFAULT);

Note that the second call shouldn't change (i.e. munlock) existing vma's 
just because MCL_CURRENT is not present. The current implementation 
doesn't do that thanks to the following in do_mlockall():

         if (flags == MCL_FUTURE)
                 goto out;

before current vma's are processed and MCL_CURRENT is checked. This is 
probably so that do_mlockall() can also handle the munlockall() syscall.
So we should be careful not to break this, but otherwise there are no 
limitations by not having two MCL_ONFAULT flags. Having to do invoke 
syscalls instead of one is not an issue as this shouldn't be frequent 
syscall.

> The catch is that,
> like mmap(MAP_LOCKED), mlockall() does not communicate if mm_populate()
> fails.  This has been true of mlockall() from the beginning so I don't
> know if it needs more than an entry in the man page to clarify (which I
> will add when I add documentation for MCL_ONFAULT).

Good point.

> In a much less
> likely corner case, it is not possible in the current setup to request
> all current VMAs be VM_LOCKONFAULT and all future be VM_LOCKED.

So again this should work:

mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_ONFAULT)
mlockall(MCL_FUTURE);

But the order matters here, as current implementation of do_mlockall() 
will clear VM_LOCKED from def_flags if MCL_FUTURE is not passed. So 
*it's different* from how it handles MCL_CURRENT (as explained above). 
And not documented in manpage. Oh crap, this API is a closet full of 
skeletons. Maybe it was an unnoticed regression and we can restore some 
sanity?
--
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/