linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] exit: clear TIF_MEMDIE after exit_task

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:	Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:35:37 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exit: clear TIF_MEMDIE after exit_task_work

On Tue 01-03-16 18:22:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 05:08:13PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 01-03-16 17:57:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 04:52:12PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > [CCing vhost-net maintainer]
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon 29-02-16 20:02:09, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > > > > An mm_struct may be pinned by a file. An example is vhost-net device
> > > > > created by a qemu/kvm (see vhost_net_ioctl -> vhost_net_set_owner ->
> > > > > vhost_dev_set_owner).
> > > > 
> > > > The more I think about that the more I am wondering whether this is
> > > > actually OK and correct. Why does the driver have to pin the address
> > > > space? Nothing really prevents from parallel tearing down of the address
> > > > space anyway so the code cannot expect all the vmas to stay. Would it be
> > > > enough to pin the mm_struct only?
> > > 
> > > I'll need to research this. It's a fact that as long as the
> > > device is not stopped, vhost can attempt to access
> > > the address space.
> > 
> > But does it expect any specific parts of the address space to be mapped?
> > E.g. proc needs to keep the mm allocated as well for some files but it
> > doesn't pin the address space (mm_users) but rather mm_count (see
> > proc_mem_open).
> 
> At a quick glance, it seems that it's needed: it calls
> get_user_pages(mm) and that looks like it will not DTRT (or even fail
> gracefully) if mm->mm_users == 0 and exit_mmap/etc was already called
> (or is in progress).

yes it will fail gracefully but what does prevent from munmap now? The
VMA can go away and get_user_pages would fail as well.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs