linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Honour passed pgprot in track_pfn_insert() and track_pfn

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: <CALCETrUQr1y_7cGtwP=A=PXBVRbP04Sv0rnAvetyEt5bTmCXSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:46:37 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Honour passed pgprot in track_pfn_insert() and track_pfn_remap()

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Matthew Wilcox
> <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com> wrote:
>> From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> track_pfn_insert() overwrites the pgprot that is passed in with a value
>> based on the VMA's page_prot.  This is a problem for people trying to
>> do clever things with the new vm_insert_pfn_prot() as it will simply
>> overwrite the passed protection flags.  If we use the current value of
>> the pgprot as the base, then it will behave as people are expecting.
>>
>> Also fix track_pfn_remap() in the same way.
>
> Well that's embarrassing.  Presumably it worked for me because I only
> overrode the cacheability bits and lookup_memtype did the right thing.
>
> But shouldn't the PAT code change the memtype if vm_insert_pfn_prot
> requests it?  Or are there no callers that actually need that?  (HPET
> doesn't, because there's a plain old ioremapped mapping.)
>

Looking a bit further, track_pfn_remap does this, while
track_pfn_insert does not.  I don't know why

I'm also a bit confused as to how any of this works.  There doesn't
seem to be any reference counting of memtypes, so I don't understand
why, say, remapping the same range twice and then freeing them in FIFO
order doesn't break the memtype code.  (There's VM_PAT, but that seems
likely to be extremely fragile.)

--Andy