linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch : arm : add a criteria for pfn

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:15:51 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch : arm : add a criteria for pfn_valid

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 11:20:35AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 03:46:51PM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 2:32 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> > <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 11:00:13AM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > > > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
> > > >
> > > > pfn_valid can be wrong while the MSB of physical address be trimed as pfn
> > > > larger than the max_pfn.
> > >
> > > What scenario are you addressing here?  At a guess, you're addressing
> > > the non-LPAE case with PFNs that correspond with >= 4GiB of memory?
> > Please find bellowing for the callstack caused by this defect. The
> > original reason is a invalid PFN passed from userspace which will
> > introduce a invalid page within stable_page_flags and then kernel
> > panic.

Thanks.

> Yeah, arm64 hit this issue a while ago and it was fixed with commit
> 5ad356eabc47 ("arm64: mm: check for upper PAGE_SHIFT bits in pfn_valid()").
> 
> IMHO, the check 
> 
> 	if ((addr >> PAGE_SHIFT) != pfn)
> 
> is more robust than comparing pfn to max_pfn.

Yep, I'd prefer to see:

	phys_addr_t addr = __pfn_to_phys(pfn);

	if (__pfn_to_phys(addr) != pfn)
		return 0;

	return memblock_is_map_memory(addr);

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up