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: <1503073709.6577.68.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:28:29 -0400
From:   Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        mike.kravetz@...cle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, fweimer@...hat.com,
        colm@...costs.net, keescook@...omium.org, luto@...capital.net,
        wad@...omium.org, mingo@...nel.org, kirill@...temov.name,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm,fork: introduce MADV_WIPEONFORK

On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 15:50 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:18:19 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > > > --- a/mm/madvise.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> > > > @@ -80,6 +80,17 @@ static long madvise_behavior(struct
> > > > vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > > __		}
> > > > __		new_flags &= ~VM_DONTCOPY;
> > > > __		break;
> > > > +	case MADV_WIPEONFORK:
> > > > +		/* MADV_WIPEONFORK is only supported on
> > > > anonymous
> > > > memory. */
> > > > +		if (vma->vm_file || vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)
> > > > {
> > > > +			error = -EINVAL;
> > > > +			goto out;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +		new_flags |= VM_WIPEONFORK;
> > > > +		break;
> > > > +	case MADV_KEEPONFORK:
> > > > +		new_flags &= ~VM_WIPEONFORK;
> > > > +		break;
> > > > __	case MADV_DONTDUMP:
> > > > __		new_flags |= VM_DONTDUMP;
> > > > __		break;
> > > 
> > > It seems odd to permit MADV_KEEPONFORK against other-than-anon
> > > vmas?
> > 
> > Given that the only way to set VM_WIPEONFORK is through
> > MADV_WIPEONFORK, calling MADV_KEEPONFORK on an
> > other-than-anon vma would be equivalent to a noop.
> > 
> > If new_flags == vma->vm_flags, madvise_behavior() will
> > immediately exit.
> 
> Yes, but calling MADV_WIPEONFORK against an other-than-anon vma is
> presumably a userspace bug.  A bug which will probably result in
> userspace having WIPEONFORK memory which it didn't want.  The kernel
> can trivially tell userspace that it has this bug so why not do so?

Uh, what?

Calling MADV_WIPEONFORK on an other-than-anon vma results
in NOT getting VM_WIPEONFORK semantics on that VMA.

The code you are commenting on is the bit that CLEARS
the VM_WIPEONFORK code, not the bit where it gets set.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ