linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Add new vma flag VM_LOCAL

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: <20180514191551.GA27939@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 12:15:51 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Boaz Harrosh <boazh@...app.com>
Cc:     Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Amit Golander <Amit.Golander@...app.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Add new vma flag VM_LOCAL_CPU

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 08:28:01PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On a call to mmap an mmap provider (like an FS) can put
> this flag on vma->vm_flags.
> 
> The VM_LOCAL_CPU flag tells the Kernel that the vma will be used
> from a single-core only, and therefore invalidation (flush_tlb) of
> PTE(s) need not be a wide CPU scheduling.

I still don't get this.  You're opening the kernel up to being exploited
by any application which can persuade it to set this flag on a VMA.

> NOTE: This vma (VM_LOCAL_CPU) is never used during a page_fault. It is
> always used in a synchronous way from a thread pinned to a single core.

It's not a question of how your app is going to use this flag.  It's a
question about how another app can abuse this flag (or how your app is
going to be exploited to abuse this flag) to break into the kernel.