linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 09/24] mm: protect mremap() against SPF hanlder

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]

Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:     paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill@...temov.name,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net,
        jack@...e.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        kemi.wang@...el.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        npiggin@...il.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 09/24] mm: protect mremap() against SPF hanlder

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote:

> >> @@ -326,7 +336,10 @@ static unsigned long move_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>  		mremap_userfaultfd_prep(new_vma, uf);
> >>  		arch_remap(mm, old_addr, old_addr + old_len,
> >>  			   new_addr, new_addr + new_len);
> >> +		if (vma != new_vma)
> >> +			vm_raw_write_end(vma);
> >>  	}
> >> +	vm_raw_write_end(new_vma);
> > 
> > Just do
> > 
> > vm_raw_write_end(vma);
> > vm_raw_write_end(new_vma);
> > 
> > here.
> 
> Are you sure ? we can have vma = new_vma done if (unlikely(err))
> 

Sorry, what I meant was do

if (vma != new_vma)
	vm_raw_write_end(vma);
vm_raw_write_end(new_vma);

after the conditional.  Having the locking unnecessarily embedded in the 
conditional has been an issue in the past with other areas of core code, 
unless you have a strong reason for it.