linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 06/24] userfaultfd: wp: support write protection for userfault vma range

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, 23 Jan 2019 10:17:45 +0800
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Maya Gokhale <gokhale2@...l.gov>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Martin Cracauer <cracauer@...s.org>,
        Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@...tuozzo.com>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Marty McFadden <mcfadden8@...l.gov>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 06/24] userfaultfd: wp: support write protection for
 userfault vma range

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:02:24PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 05:39:35PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 09:05:35AM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > +	change_protection(dst_vma, start, start + len, newprot,
> > > > +				!enable_wp, 0);
> > > 
> > > So setting dirty_accountable bring us to that code in mprotect.c:
> > > 
> > >     if (dirty_accountable && pte_dirty(ptent) &&
> > >             (pte_soft_dirty(ptent) ||
> > >              !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SOFTDIRTY))) {
> > >         ptent = pte_mkwrite(ptent);
> > >     }
> > > 
> > > My understanding is that you want to set write flag when enable_wp
> > > is false and you want to set the write flag unconditionaly, right ?
> > 
> > Right.
> > 
> > > 
> > > If so then you should really move the change_protection() flags
> > > patch before this patch and add a flag for setting pte write flags.
> > > 
> > > Otherwise the above is broken at it will only set the write flag
> > > for pte that were dirty and i am guessing so far you always were
> > > lucky because pte were all dirty (change_protection will preserve
> > > dirtyness) when you write protected them.
> > > 
> > > So i believe the above is broken or at very least unclear if what
> > > you really want is to only set write flag to pte that have the
> > > dirty flag set.
> > 
> > You are right, if we build the tree until this patch it won't work for
> > all the cases.  It'll only work if the page was at least writable
> > before and also it's dirty (as you explained).  Sorry to be unclear
> > about this, maybe I should at least mention that in the commit message
> > but I totally forgot it.
> > 
> > All these problems are solved in later on patches, please feel free to
> > have a look at:
> > 
> >   mm: merge parameters for change_protection()
> >   userfaultfd: wp: apply _PAGE_UFFD_WP bit
> >   userfaultfd: wp: handle COW properly for uffd-wp
> > 
> > Note that even in the follow up patches IMHO we can't directly change
> > the write permission since the page can be shared by other processes
> > (e.g., the zero page or COW pages).  But the general idea is the same
> > as you explained.
> > 
> > I tried to avoid squashing these stuff altogether as explained
> > previously.  Also, this patch can be seen as a standalone patch to
> > introduce the new interface which seems to make sense too, and it is
> > indeed still working in many cases so I see the latter patches as
> > enhancement of this one.  Please let me know if you still want me to
> > have all these stuff squashed, or if you'd like me to squash some of
> > them.
> 
> Yeah i have look at those after looking at this one. You should just
> re-order the patch this one first and then one that add new flag,
> then ones that add the new userfaultfd feature. Otherwise you are
> adding a userfaultfd feature that is broken midway ie it is added
> broken and then you fix it. Some one bisecting thing might get hurt
> by that. It is better to add and change everything you need and then
> add the new feature so that the new feature will work as intended.
> 
> So no squashing just change the order ie add the userfaultfd code
> last.

Yes this makes sense, I'll do that in v2.  Thanks for the suggestion!

-- 
Peter Xu