linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: avoid get wrong ptep caused by race

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:   Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:22:24 -0800
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     "Longpeng (Mike)" <longpeng2@...wei.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arei.gonglei@...wei.com,
        weidong.huang@...wei.com, weifuqiang@...wei.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: avoid get wrong ptep caused by race

On 2/19/20 6:30 PM, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
> 在 2020/2/20 3:33, Mike Kravetz 写道:
>> + Kirill
>> On 2/18/20 5:58 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 09:39:59AM +0800, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
<snip>
>>> The race and the fix make sense.  I assumed dereferencing garbage from the
>>> huge page was the issue, but I wasn't 100% that was the case, which is why
>>> I asked about alternative fixes.
>>>
>>>> We change the code from
>>>> 	if (pud_huge(*pud) || !pud_present(*pud))
>>>> to
>>>> 	if (pud_huge(*pud)
>>>> 		return (pte_t *)pud;
>>>> 	busy loop for 500ms
>>>> 	if (!pud_present(*pud))
>>>> 		return (pte_t *)pud;
>>>> and the panic will be hit quickly.
>>>>
>>>> ARM64 has already use READ/WRITE_ONCE to access the pagetable, look at this
>>>> commit 20a004e7 (arm64: mm: Use READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE when accessing page tables).
>>>>
>>>> The root cause is: 'if (pud_huge(*pud) || !pud_present(*pud))' read entry from
>>>> pud twice and the *pud maybe change in a race, so if we only read the pud once.
>>>> I use READ_ONCE here is just for safe, to prevents the complier mischief if
>>>> possible.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I'd be in favor of going the READ/WRITE_ONCE() route for x86, e.g.
>>> convert everything as a follow-up patch (or patches).  I'm fairly confident
>>> that KVM's usage of lookup_address_in_mm() is safe, but I wouldn't exactly
>>> bet my life on it.  I'd much rather the failing scenario be that KVM uses
>>> a sub-optimal page size as opposed to exploding on a bad pointer.
>>
>> Longpeng(Mike) asked in another e-mail specifically about making similar
>> changes to lookup_address_in_mm().  Replying here as there is more context.
>>
>> I 'think' lookup_address_in_mm is safe from this issue.  Why?  IIUC, the
>> problem with the huge_pte_offset routine is that the pud changes from
>> pud_none() to pud_huge() in the middle of
>> 'if (pud_huge(*pud) || !pud_present(*pud))'.  In the case of
>> lookup_address_in_mm, we know pud was not pud_none() as it was previously
>> checked.  I am not aware of any other state transitions which could cause
>> us trouble.  However, I am no expert in this area.

Bad copy/paste by me.  Longpeng(Mike) was asking about lookup_address_in_pgd.

> So... I need just fix huge_pte_offset in mm/hugetlb.c, right?

Let's start with just a fix for huge_pte_offset() as you can easily reproduce
that issue by adding a delay.

> Is it possible the pud changes from pud_huge() to pud_none() while another CPU
> is walking the pagetable ?

I believe it is possible.  If we hole punch a hugetlbfs file, we will clear
the corresponding pud's.  Hence, we can go from pud_huge() to pud_none().
Unless I am missing something, that does imply we could have issues in places
such as lookup_address_in_pgd:

	pud = pud_offset(p4d, address);
	if (pud_none(*pud))
		return NULL;

	*level = PG_LEVEL_1G;
	if (pud_large(*pud) || !pud_present(*pud))
		return (pte_t *)pud;

I hope I am wrong, but it seems like pud_none(*pud) could become true after
the initial check, and before the (pud_large) check.  If so, there could be
a problem (addressing exception) when the code continues and looks up the pmd.

	pmd = pmd_offset(pud, address);
	if (pmd_none(*pmd))
		return NULL;

It has been mentioned before that there are many page table walks like this.
What am I missing that prevents races like this?  Or, have we just been lucky?
-- 
Mike Kravetz