linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] x86/mm: Do not allow non-MAP_FIXED mapping across DEFAULT_MAP

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: <20171115112702.e2m66wons37imtcj@node.shutemov.name>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:27:02 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] x86/mm: Do not allow non-MAP_FIXED mapping across
 DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW border

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:00:46AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 09:54:52PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 05:01:50PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > @@ -198,11 +199,14 @@ arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown(struct fi
> > > > >  	/* requesting a specific address */
> > > > >  	if (addr) {
> > > > >  		addr = PAGE_ALIGN(addr);
> > > > > +		if (!mmap_address_hint_valid(addr, len))
> > > > > +			goto get_unmapped_area;
> > > > > +
> > > > 
> > > > Here and in hugetlb_get_unmapped_area(), we should align the addr after
> > > > the check, not before. Otherwise the alignment itself can bring us over
> > > > the borderline as we align up.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, then I wonder whether the next check against vm_start_gap() which
> > > checks against the aligned address is correct:
> > > 
> > >                 addr = PAGE_ALIGN(addr);
> > >                 vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
> > > 
> > >                 if (end - len >= addr &&
> > >                     (!vma || addr + len <= vm_start_gap(vma)))
> > >                         return addr;
> > 
> > I think the check is correct. The check is against resulting addresses
> > that end up in vm_start/vm_end. In our case we want to figure out what
> > user asked for.
> 
> Well, but then checking just against the user supplied addr is only half of
> the story.
> 
>     addr = boundary - PAGE_SIZE - PAGE_SIZE / 2;
>     len = PAGE_SIZE - PAGE_SIZE / 2;
> 
> That fits, but then after alignment we end up with
> 
>     addr = boudary - PAGE_SIZE;
> 
> and due to len > PAGE_SIZE this will result in a mapping which crosses the
> boundary, right? So checking against the PAGE_ALIGN(addr) should be the
> right thing to do.

IIUC, this is only the case if 'len' is not aligned, right?

>From what I see we expect caller to align it (and mm/mmap.c does this, I
haven't checked other callers).

And hugetlb would actively reject non-aligned len.

I *think* we should be fine with checking unaligned 'addr'.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov