linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] mm, gup: prevent pmd checking race in follow_pmd

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: <65E6BD75-FBA6-43AC-AC5A-B952DE409BC8@cs.rutgers.edu>
Date:   Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:02:26 -0400
From:   "Zi Yan" <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Al Viro" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] mm, gup: prevent pmd checking race in
 follow_pmd_mask()

On 3 Apr 2018, at 23:22, Huang, Ying wrote:

> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
>
> mmap_sem will be read locked when calling follow_pmd_mask().  But this
> cannot prevent PMD from being changed for all cases when PTL is
> unlocked, for example, from pmd_trans_huge() to pmd_none() via
> MADV_DONTNEED.  So it is possible for the pmd_present() check in
> follow_pmd_mask() encounter a none PMD.  This may cause incorrect
> VM_BUG_ON() or infinite loop.  Fixed this via reading PMD entry again
> but only once and checking the local variable and pmd_none() in the
> retry loop.
>
> As Kirill pointed out, with PTL unlocked, the *pmd may be changed
> under us, so read it directly again and again may incur weird bugs.
> So although using *pmd directly other than pmd_present() checking may
> be safe, it is still better to replace them to read *pmd once and
> check the local variable for multiple times.

I see you point there. The patch wants to provide a consistent value
for all race checks. Specifically, this patch is trying to avoid the inconsistent
reads of *pmd for if-statements, which causes problem when both if-condition reads *pmd and
the statements inside "if" reads *pmd again and two reads can give different values.
Am I right about this?

If yes, the problem can be solved by something like:

if (!pmd_present(tmpval = *pmd)) {
    check tmpval instead of *pmd;
}

Right?

I just wonder if we need some general code for all race checks.

Thanks.

--
Best Regards
Yan Zi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (497 bytes)