linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Add proc interface to set PF

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 19:07:34 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>, axboe@...nel.dk,
        James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Add proc interface to set PF_MEMALLOC flags

On 2019/09/11 12:13, Hillf Danton wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 11:06:03 -0500 From: Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>
>>
>>> Really? Without any privilege check? So any random user can tap into
>>> __GFP_NOIO allocations?
>>
>> That was a mistake on my part. I will add it in.
>>
> You may alternatively madvise a nutcracker as long as you would have
> added a sledgehammer under /proc instead of a gavel.
> 
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/mman-common.h
> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
>  #define MADV_SEQUENTIAL	2		/* expect sequential page references */
>  #define MADV_WILLNEED	3		/* will need these pages */
>  #define MADV_DONTNEED	4		/* don't need these pages */
> +#define MADV_NOIO	5		/* set PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO */
>  
>  /* common parameters: try to keep these consistent across architectures */
>  #define MADV_FREE	8		/* free pages only if memory pressure */
> --- a/mm/madvise.c
> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> @@ -716,6 +716,7 @@ madvise_behavior_valid(int behavior)
>  	case MADV_WILLNEED:
>  	case MADV_DONTNEED:
>  	case MADV_FREE:
> +	case MADV_NOIO:
>  #ifdef CONFIG_KSM
>  	case MADV_MERGEABLE:
>  	case MADV_UNMERGEABLE:
> @@ -813,6 +814,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(madvise, unsigned long,
>  	if (!madvise_behavior_valid(behavior))
>  		return error;
>  
> +	if (behavior == MADV_NOIO) {
> +		current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO;

Yes, for "modifying p->flags when p != current" is not permitted.

But I guess that there is a problem. Setting PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO causes
current_gfp_context() to mask __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS, but the OOM killer cannot
be invoked when __GFP_FS is masked. As a result, any userspace thread which
has PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO cannot invoke the OOM killer. If the userspace thread
which uses PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO is involved in memory reclaiming activities,
the memory reclaiming activities won't be able to make forward progress when
the userspace thread triggered e.g. a page fault. Can the "userspace components
that can run in the IO path" survive without any memory allocation?

> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (start & ~PAGE_MASK)
>  		return error;
>  	len = (len_in + ~PAGE_MASK) & PAGE_MASK;