linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

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: <20171113154811.GM12318@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:48:13 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code
> > would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements
> > arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to
> > do vma lookup.
> 
> It turned out that this might be much more easier than I thought after
> all. It seems we can really handle that in the common code. This would
> mean that we are exposing a new functionality to the userspace though.
> Myabe this would be useful on its own though. Just a quick draft (not
> even compile tested) whether this makes sense in general. I would be
> worried about unexpected behavior when somebody set other bit without a
> good reason and we might fail with ENOMEM for such a call now.
> 
> Elf loader would then use MAP_FIXED_SAFE rather than MAP_FIXED.
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/mman.h b/arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/mman.h
> index 3b26cc62dadb..d021c21f9b01 100644
> --- a/arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/mman.h
> +++ b/arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/mman.h
> @@ -31,6 +31,9 @@
>  #define MAP_STACK	0x80000		/* give out an address that is best suited for process/thread stacks */
>  #define MAP_HUGETLB	0x100000	/* create a huge page mapping */
>  
> +#define MAP_KEEP_MAPPING 0x2000000
> +#define MAP_FIXED_SAFE	MAP_FIXED|MAP_KEEP_MAPPING /* enforce MAP_FIXED without clobbering an existing mapping */

A few things...

1. Does this need to be exposed to userland?
2. Can it end up in include/uapi/asm-generic/mman*.h ?
3. The definition of MAP_FIXED_SAFE should really have parens around it.

> @@ -1365,6 +1365,13 @@ unsigned long do_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
>  	if (offset_in_page(addr))
>  		return addr;
>  
> +	if ((flags & MAP_FIXED_SAFE) == MAP_FIXED_SAFE) {

I'm surprised this doesn't warn - since this effectively expands to:

	flags & MAP_FIXED | MAP_KEEP_MAPPING

hence why MAP_FIXED_SAFE needs parens.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up