linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] mm: process_vm_mmap() -- syscall for duplication a process mapping

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: <de6e4e89-66ac-da2f-48a6-4d98a728687a@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 12:15:16 +0300
From:   Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        mhocko@...e.com, keith.busch@...el.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com,
        ira.weiny@...el.com, andreyknvl@...gle.com, arunks@...eaurora.org,
        vbabka@...e.cz, cl@...ux.com, riel@...riel.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, hannes@...xchg.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, guro@...com,
        aarcange@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com, jglisse@...hat.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        jannh@...gle.com, kilobyte@...band.pl, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] mm: process_vm_mmap() -- syscall for duplication a
 process mapping

On 28.05.2019 02:30, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 05:00:32PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> On 24.05.2019 14:52, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 01:45:50PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>> On 22.05.2019 18:22, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 05:00:01PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>>>> This patchset adds a new syscall, which makes possible
>>>>>> to clone a VMA from a process to current process.
>>>>>> The syscall supplements the functionality provided
>>>>>> by process_vm_writev() and process_vm_readv() syscalls,
>>>>>> and it may be useful in many situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kirill, could you explain how the change affects rmap and how it is safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> My concern is that the patchset allows to map the same page multiple times
>>>>> within one process or even map page allocated by child to the parrent.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was not allowed before.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the best case it makes reasoning about rmap substantially more difficult.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I'm worry it will introduce hard-to-debug bugs, like described in
>>>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/383162/.
>>>>
>>>> Andy suggested to unmap PTEs from source page table, and this make the single
>>>> page never be mapped in the same process twice. This is OK for my use case,
>>>> and here we will just do a small step "allow to inherit VMA by a child process",
>>>> which we didn't have before this. If someone still needs to continue the work
>>>> to allow the same page be mapped twice in a single process in the future, this
>>>> person will have a supported basis we do in this small step. I believe, someone
>>>> like debugger may want to have this to make a fast snapshot of a process private
>>>> memory (when the task is stopped for a small time to get its memory). But for
>>>> me remapping is enough at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think about this?
>>>
>>> I don't think that unmapping alone will do. Consider the following
>>> scenario:
>>>
>>> 1. Task A creates and populates the mapping.
>>> 2. Task A forks. We have now Task B mapping the same pages, but
>>> write-protected.
>>> 3. Task B calls process_vm_mmap() and passes the mapping to the parent.
>>>
>>> After this Task A will have the same anon pages mapped twice.
>>
>> Ah, sure.
>>
>>> One possible way out would be to force CoW on all pages in the mapping,
>>> before passing the mapping to the new process.
>>
>> This will pop all swapped pages up, which is the thing the patchset aims
>> to prevent.
>>
>> Hm, what about allow remapping only VMA, which anon_vma::rb_root contain
>> only chain and which vma->anon_vma_chain contains single entry? This is
>> a vma, which were faulted, but its mm never were duplicated (or which
>> forks already died).
> 
> The requirement for the VMA to be faulted (have any pages mapped) looks
> excessive to me, but the general idea may work.
> 
> One issue I see is that userspace may not have full control to create such
> VMA. vma_merge() can merge the VMA to the next one without any consent
> from userspace and you'll get anon_vma inherited from the VMA you've
> justed merged with.
> 
> I don't have any valid idea on how to get around this.

Technically it is possible by creating boundary 1-page VMAs with another protection:
one above and one below the desired region, then map the desired mapping. But this
is not comfortable.

I don't think it's difficult to find a natural limitation, which prevents mapping
a single page twice if we want to avoid this at least on start. Another suggestion:

prohibit to map a remote process's VMA only in case of its vm_area_struct::anon_vma::root
is the same as root of one of local process's VMA.

What about this?

Thanks,
Kirill