linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/mempolicy: add nodes_empty check in SYSC_migrate

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: <43477914-445f-c1cd-afdb-94a23ba25baa@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:03:27 +0800
From:   Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <mhocko@...e.com>, <mingo@...nel.org>, <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>, <salls@...ucsb.edu>,
        <ak@...ux.intel.com>, <cl@...ux.com>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/mempolicy: add nodes_empty check in
 SYSC_migrate_pages

Hi Vlastimil,

Thanks for your comment!
On 2017/11/28 1:25, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/17/2017 02:37 AM, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>> As manpage of migrate_pages, the errno should be set to EINVAL when
>> none of the node IDs specified by new_nodes are on-line and allowed
>> by the process's current cpuset context, or none of the specified
>> nodes contain memory. However, when test by following case:
>>
>> 	new_nodes = 0;
>> 	old_nodes = 0xf;
>> 	ret = migrate_pages(pid, old_nodes, new_nodes, MAX);
>>
>> The ret will be 0 and no errno is set. As the new_nodes is empty,
>> we should expect EINVAL as documented.
>>
>> To fix the case like above, this patch check whether target nodes
>> AND current task_nodes is empty, and then check whether AND
>> node_states[N_MEMORY] is empty.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/mempolicy.c | 10 +++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
>> index 65df28d..f604b22 100644
>> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
>> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
>> @@ -1433,10 +1433,14 @@ static int copy_nodes_to_user(unsigned long __user *mask, unsigned long maxnode,
>>  		goto out_put;
>>  	}
> 
> Let me add the whole preceding that ends on the lines above:
> 
>         task_nodes = cpuset_mems_allowed(task);
>         /* Is the user allowed to access the target nodes? */
>         if (!nodes_subset(*new, task_nodes) && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) {
>                 err = -EPERM;
>                 goto out_put;
>         }
> 
>>  
>> -	if (!nodes_subset(*new, node_states[N_MEMORY])) {
>> -		err = -EINVAL;
>> +	task_nodes = cpuset_mems_allowed(current);
>> +	nodes_and(*new, *new, task_nodes);
>> +	if (nodes_empty(*new))
>> +		goto out_put;
> 
> So if we have CAP_SYS_NICE, we pass (or rather skip) the EPERM check
> above, but the current cpuset restriction still applies regardless. This
> doesn't make sense to me? If I get Christoph right in the v2 discussion,
> then CAP_SYS_NICE should not allow current cpuset escape. 
hmm, maybe I do not get what you mean, the patch seems do not *escape* the
current cpuset?  if CAP_SYS_NICE it also check current cpuset, right?

> In that case,
> we should remove the CAP_SYS_NICE check from the EPERM check? Also
> should it be a subset check, or a non-empty-intersection check?

So you mean:
1. we should remove the EPERM check above?
2. Not sure we should use subset check, or a non-empty-intersection for current cpuset?
(Please let me know, if have other points.)

For 1: I have checked the manpage of capabilities[1]:
CAP_SYS_NICE
	[...]
	*apply migrate_pages(2) to arbitrary processes* and allow
        processes to be migrated to arbitrary nodes;

	apply move_pages(2) to arbitrary processes;
	[...]

Therefore, IMO, EPERM check should be something like:
	if (currtent->mm != task->mm && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) { // or if (currtent != task && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) ?
		err = -EPERM;
		goto out_put;
	}
And I kept it as unchanged to follow the original code's meaning.(For move_pages
also use the the logical to check EPERM). I also did not want to break the existing code. :)

For 2: we should follow the manpage of migrate_pages about EINVAL, as your listed in
the former discussion:
	  EINVAL... Or, _none_ of the node IDs specified by new_nodes are
 	 	on-line and allowed by the process's current cpuset context, or none of
  		the specified nodes contain memory.

So a non-empty-intersection check for current cpuset should be enough, right?
And Christoph seems do _not oppose_ this point. (I not sure whether he is *agree* or not).

[1] http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/capabilities.7.html
> 
> Note there's still a danger that we are breaking existing code so this
> will have to be reverted in any case...

I am not oppose if you want to revert this patch, but we should find a
correct way to fix the case above, right? Maybe anther version or a fix to fold?

Thanks
Yisheng Xie
> 
>> +
>> +	nodes_and(*new, *new, node_states[N_MEMORY]);
>> +	if (nodes_empty(*new))
>>  		goto out_put;
>> -	}
>>  
>>  	err = security_task_movememory(task);
>>  	if (err)
>>
> 
> 
> .
>