linux-kernel - Re: interaction of MADV_PAGEOUT with CoW anonymous mappings?

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]

Message-ID: <CAG48ez2EWzn_xm0Q3YaPjSXrhVAAOUUvNDyDQ+jpgavmN6wLvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:40:00 +0100
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: interaction of MADV_PAGEOUT with CoW anonymous mappings?

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 9:19 PM Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:48 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue 10-03-20 19:08:28, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > >From looking at the source code, it looks to me as if using
> > > MADV_PAGEOUT on a CoW anonymous mapping will page out the page if
> > > possible, even if other processes still have the same page mapped. Is
> > > that correct?
> > >
> > > If so, that's probably bad in environments where many processes (with
> > > different privileges) are forked from a single zygote process (like
> > > Android and Chrome), I think? If you accidentally call it on a CoW
> > > anonymous mapping with shared pages, you'll degrade the performance of
> > > other processes. And if an attacker does it intentionally, they could
> > > use that to aid with exploiting race conditions or weird
> > > microarchitectural stuff (e.g. the new https://lviattack.eu/lvi.pdf
> > > talks about "the assumption that attackers can provoke page faults or
> > > microcode assists for (arbitrary) load operations in the victim
> > > domain").
> > >
> > > Should madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() maybe refuse to operate on
> > > pages with mapcount>1, or something like that? Or does it already do
> > > that, and I just missed the check?
> >
> > I have brought up side channel attacks earlier [1] but only in the
> > context of shared page cache pages. I didn't really consider shared
> > anonymous pages to be a real problem. I was under impression that CoW
> > pages shouldn't be a real problem because any security sensible
> > applications shouldn't allow untrusted code to be forked and CoW
> > anything really important. I believe we have made this assumption
> > in other places - IIRC on gup with FOLL_FORCE but I admit I have
> > very happily forgot most details.
>
> I'm more worried about the performance implications. Consider
> libc.so's data section: that's a COW mapping, and we COW it during
> zygote initialization as we load and relocate libc.so. Child processes
> shouldn't be dirtying and re-COWing those relocated pages. If I
> understand Jann's message correctly, MADV_PAGEOUT would force the
> pages corresponding to the libc.so data segment out to zram just
> because we MADV_PAGEOUT-ed a single process that happened to use libc.
> We should leave those pages in memory, IMHO.

Actually, the libc.so data section is a file mapping, so I think
can_do_pageout() would decide whether the caller is allowed to force
pageout based on whether the caller is the owner of (or capable over)
libc (in other words, root, basically). But I think the bss section,
as well as heap memory, could have pageout forced by anyone.