linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: reset all task's asid to 0 after asid

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: <58BD0E0A.9000402@windriver.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Mar 2017 15:21:46 +0800
From:   jsun4 <Jiwei.Sun@...driver.com>
To:     Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, <paul.burton@...tec.com>,
        <james.hogan@...tec.com>
CC:     <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <jiwei.sun.bj@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: reset all task's asid to 0 after asid_cache(cpu)
 overflows

Hello Sergei,

Thanks for your reply.

On 03/05/2017 05:38 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On 3/5/2017 6:24 AM, Jiwei Sun wrote:
> 
>> If asid_cache(cpu) overflows, there may be two tasks with the same
>> asid. It is a risk that the two different tasks may have the same
>> address space.
>>
>> A process will update its asid to newer version only when switch_mm()
>> is called and matches the following condition:
>>     if ((cpu_context(cpu, next) ^ asid_cache(cpu))
>>                     & asid_version_mask(cpu))
>>             get_new_mmu_context(next, cpu);
>> If asid_cache(cpu) overflows, cpu_context(cpu,next) and asid_cache(cpu)
>> will be reset to asid_first_version(cpu), and start a new cycle. It
>> can result in two tasks that have the same ASID in the process list.
>>
>> For example, in CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32_R2, task named A's asid on CPU1 is
>> 0x100, and has been sleeping and been not scheduled. After a long period
>> of time, another running task named B's asid on CPU1 is 0xffffffff, and
>> asid cached in the CPU1 is 0xffffffff too, next task named C is forked,
>> when schedule from B to C on CPU1, asid_cache(cpu) will overflow, so C's
>> asid on CPU1 will be 0x100 according to get_new_mmu_context(). A's asid
>> is the same as C, if now A is rescheduled on CPU1, A's asid is not able
>> to renew according to 'if' clause, and the local TLB entry can't be
>> flushed too, A's address space will be the same as C.
>>
>> If asid_cache(cpu) overflows, all of user space task's asid on this CPU
>> are able to set a invalid value (such as 0), it will avoid the risk.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiwei Sun <jiwei.sun@...driver.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/mips/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 9 ++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/mmu_context.h
>> index ddd57ad..1f60efc 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/mmu_context.h
>> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/mmu_context.h
>> @@ -108,8 +108,15 @@ static inline void enter_lazy_tlb(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *tsk)
>>  #else
>>          local_flush_tlb_all();    /* start new asid cycle */
>>  #endif
>> -        if (!asid)        /* fix version if needed */
>> +        if (!asid) {        /* fix version if needed */
>> +            struct task_struct *p;
>> +
>> +            for_each_process(p) {
>> +                if ((p->mm))
> 
>    Why double parens?

At the beginning, the code was written as following
	if ((p->mm) && (p->mm != mm))
		cpu_context(cpu, p->mm) = 0;

Because cpu_context(cpu,mm) will be changed to asid_first_version(cpu) after 'for' loop,
and in order to improve the efficiency of the loop, I deleted "&& (p->mm != mm)",
but I forgot to delete the redundant parentheses.

Thanks,
Best regards,
Jiwei

> 
>> +                    cpu_context(cpu, p->mm) = 0;
>> +            }
>>              asid = asid_first_version(cpu);
>> +        }
>>      }
>>
>>      cpu_context(cpu, mm) = asid_cache(cpu) = asid;
> 
> MBR, Sergei
>