linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: Fix a huge pud insertion race during faulting

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, 16 Oct 2019 07:59:15 +0200
From:   Thomas Hellström (VMware) 
        <thomas_os@...pmail.org>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: Fix a huge pud insertion race during faulting

Hi, Dan,

On 10/16/19 3:44 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:06 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:37:11AM +0200, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
>>> From: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
>>>
>>> A huge pud page can theoretically be faulted in racing with pmd_alloc()
>>> in __handle_mm_fault(). That will lead to pmd_alloc() returning an
>>> invalid pmd pointer. Fix this by adding a pud_trans_unstable() function
>>> similar to pmd_trans_unstable() and check whether the pud is really stable
>>> before using the pmd pointer.
>>>
>>> Race:
>>> Thread 1:             Thread 2:                 Comment
>>> create_huge_pud()                               Fallback - not taken.
>>>                      create_huge_pud()         Taken.
>>> pmd_alloc()                                     Returns an invalid pointer.
>>>
>>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
>>> Fixes: a00cc7d9dd93 ("mm, x86: add support for PUD-sized transparent hugepages")
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
>>> ---
>>> RFC: We include pud_devmap() as an unstable PUD flag. Is this correct?
>>>       Do the same for pmds?
>> I *think* it is correct and we should do the same for PMD, but I may be
>> wrong.
>>
>> Dan, Matthew, could you comment on this?
> The _devmap() check in these paths near _trans_unstable() has always
> been about avoiding assumptions that the corresponding page might be
> page cache or anonymous which for dax it's neither and does not behave
> like a typical page.

The concern here is that _trans_huge() returns false for _devmap() 
pages, which means that also _trans_unstable() returns false.

Still, I figure someone could zap the entry at any time using madvise(), 
so AFAICT the entry is indeed unstable, and it's a bug not to include 
_devmap() in the _trans_unstable() functions?

Thanks,

Thomas