[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191216174849.586463116@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:50:20 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Nicolas Geoffray <ngeoffray@...gle.com>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 164/177] mm, memfd: fix COW issue on MAP_PRIVATE and F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE mappings
From: Nicolas Geoffray <ngeoffray@...gle.com>
commit 05d351102dbe4e103d6bdac18b1122cd3cd04925 upstream.
F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE has unexpected behavior when used with MAP_PRIVATE:
A private mapping created after the memfd file that gets sealed with
F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE loses the copy-on-write at fork behavior, meaning
children and parent share the same memory, even though the mapping is
private.
The reason for this is due to the code below:
static int shmem_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(file_inode(file));
if (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE) {
/*
* New PROT_WRITE and MAP_SHARED mmaps are not allowed when
* "future write" seal active.
*/
if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) && (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))
return -EPERM;
/*
* Since the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seals allow for a MAP_SHARED
* read-only mapping, take care to not allow mprotect to revert
* protections.
*/
vma->vm_flags &= ~(VM_MAYWRITE);
}
...
}
And for the mm to know if a mapping is copy-on-write:
static inline bool is_cow_mapping(vm_flags_t flags)
{
return (flags & (VM_SHARED | VM_MAYWRITE)) == VM_MAYWRITE;
}
The patch fixes the issue by making the mprotect revert protection
happen only for shared mappings. For private mappings, using mprotect
will have no effect on the seal behavior.
The F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE feature was introduced in v5.1 so v5.3.x stable
kernels would need a backport.
[akpm@...ux-foundation.org: reflow comment, per Christoph]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191107195355.80608-1-joel@joelfernandes.org
Fixes: ab3948f58ff84 ("mm/memfd: add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Geoffray <ngeoffray@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
mm/shmem.c | 11 +++++++----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -2213,11 +2213,14 @@ static int shmem_mmap(struct file *file,
return -EPERM;
/*
- * Since the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seals allow for a MAP_SHARED
- * read-only mapping, take care to not allow mprotect to revert
- * protections.
+ * Since an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE sealed memfd can be mapped as
+ * MAP_SHARED and read-only, take care to not allow mprotect to
+ * revert protections on such mappings. Do this only for shared
+ * mappings. For private mappings, don't need to mask
+ * VM_MAYWRITE as we still want them to be COW-writable.
*/
- vma->vm_flags &= ~(VM_MAYWRITE);
+ if (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)
+ vma->vm_flags &= ~(VM_MAYWRITE);
}
file_accessed(file);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists