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: <CAG48ez1bV_zZP3Y2ioDndP+H8mLCcxOtU1vCbWe7Q8myEGfXQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 22:17:40 +0200
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
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, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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.

But not parts of the address space that were returned by this mmap() call.

> Just
> consider that another thread would does mmap(x, MAP_FIXED) (or any other
> address overlapping [x, x+len] range)

If the other thread does that without previously having created a
mapping covering the area in question, that would be a bug in the
other thread. MAP_FIXED on an unmapped address is almost always a bug
(excluding single-threaded cases with no library code, and even then
it's quite weird) - for example, any malloc() call could also cause
libc to start using the memory range you're trying to map with
MAP_FIXED.

> becaus it is seemingly safe as x
> != hint.

I don't understand this part. Are you talking about a hypothetical
scenario in which a programmer attempts to segment the virtual memory
space into areas that are exclusively used by threads without creating
memory mappings for those areas?

> 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.