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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALCETrXJacX8HB3vahu0AaarE98qkx-wW9tRYQ8nVVbHt=FgzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:44:24 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.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 Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:33:35AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski 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.)
>
> I'm confused.  Here's what I understand:
>
>  - on x86, the bits in pgprot can be considered as two sets of bits;
>    the 'cacheability bits' -- those in _PAGE_CACHE_MASK and the
>    'protection bits' -- PRESENT, RW, USER, ACCESSED, NX
>  - The purpose of track_pfn_insert() is to ensure that the cacheability bits
>    are the same on all mappings of a given page, as strongly advised by the
>    Intel manuals [1].  So track_pfn_insert() is really only supposed to
>    modify _PAGE_CACHE_MASK of the passed pgprot, but in fact it ends up
>    modifying the protection bits as well, due to the bug.
>
> I don't think you overrode the cacheability bits at all.  It looks to
> me like your patch ends up mapping the HPET into userspace writable.

I sure hope not.  If vm_page_prot was writable, something was already
broken, because this is the vvar mapping, and the vvar mapping is
VM_READ (and not even VM_MAYREAD).

>
> I don't think the vm_insert_pfn_prot() call gets to change the memtype.
> For one, that page may already be mapped into a differet userspace using
> the pre-existing memtype, and [1] continues to bite you.  Then there
> may be outstanding kernel users of the page that's being mapped in.

So why was remap_pfn_range different?  I'm sure there was a reason.

I don't think that whatever_pfn_prot should ever map a page
inconsistently, but I find it surprising that some of the variants
call reserve_memtype to change the memtype and others don't.

Anyway, this is in no way an objection to your patches.

--Andy