linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmap.2: MAP_FIXED is okay if the address range has been reserved

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: <20180416195726.GT17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:57:26 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmap.2: MAP_FIXED is okay if the address range has been
 reserved

On Mon 16-04-18 21:30:09, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:18 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, reasonably well written application will not have this problem.
> > That, however, requires an external synchronization and that's why
> > called it error prone and racy. I guess that was the main motivation for
> > that part of the man page.
> 
> What requires external synchronization? I still don't understand at
> all what you're talking about.
> 
> The following code:
> 
> void *try_to_alloc_addr(void *hint, size_t len) {
>   char *x = mmap(hint, len, ...);
>   if (x == MAP_FAILED) return NULL;
>   if (x == hint) return x;

Any other thread can modify the address space at this moment. Just
consider that another thread would does mmap(x, MAP_FIXED) (or any other
address overlapping [x, x+len] range) becaus it is seemingly safe as x
!= hint. This will succeed and ...
>   munmap(x, len);
... now you are munmaping somebody's else memory range

>   return NULL;

Do code _is_ buggy but it is not obvious at all.

> }
> 
> has no need for any form of external synchronization.

If the above mmap/munmap section was protected by a lock and _all_ other
mmaps (direct or indirect) would use the same lock then you are safe
against that.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs