linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fs/splice: add missing callback for inaccessible pages

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: <3d379d9e-241c-ef3b-dcef-20fdd3b8740d@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 09:18:34 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Cc:     david@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
        jhubbard@...dia.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz, kirill@...temov.name,
        peterz@...radead.org, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com,
        Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fs/splice: add missing callback for inaccessible
 pages



On 01.05.20 00:06, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I was also wondering if Claudio was right about the debug patch having
> races.  I went to go look how the s390 code avoids races when pages go
> from accessible->inaccessible.
> 
> Because, if if all of the traps are in place to transform pages from
> inaccessible->accessible, the code *after* those traps is still
> vulnerable.  What *keeps* pages accessible?
> 
> The race avoidance is this, basically:
> 
> 	down_read(&gmap->mm->mmap_sem);
> 	lock_page(page);
>         ptep = get_locked_pte(gmap->mm, uaddr, &ptelock);
> ...
>>         expected = expected_page_refs(page);
>>         if (!page_ref_freeze(page, expected))
>>                 return -EBUSY;
>>         set_bit(PG_arch_1, &page->flags);
>>         rc = uv_call(0, (u64)uvcb);
>>         page_ref_unfreeze(page, expected);
> 
> ... up_read(mmap_sem) / unlock_page() / unlock pte
> 
> I'm assuming that after the uv_call(), the page is inaccessible and I/O
> devices will go boom if they touch the page.
> 
> The page_ref_freeze() ensures that references come between the
> freeze/unfreeze are noticed, but it doesn't actually *stop* new ones for
> users that hold references already.  For the page cache, especially,
> someone could do:
> 
> 	page = find_get_page();
> 	arch_make_page_accessible();
> 					lock_page();
> 	...				make_secure_pte();

Not sure if I got your point here, but this make_secure_pte should bail
out because we actually do check for a calculated refcount value and return
-EBUSY. The find_get_page should have raised this refcount to a value that
would go beyond the expected value, No? 


> 					unlock_page();
> 	get_page();
> 	// ^ OK because I have a ref
> 	// do DMA on inaccessible page
> 
> Because the make_secure_pte() code isn't looking for a *specific*
> 'expected' value, it has no way of noticing that the extra ref snuck in
> there.

I think the expected calcution is actually doing that,giving back the minimum
value when no one else has any references that are valid for I/O.

But I might not have understood what you are trying to tell me?

> 
> I _think_ expected actually needs to be checked for having a specific
> (low) value so that if there's a *possibility* of a reference holder
> acquiring additional references, the page is known to be off-limits.
> mm/migrate.c has a few examples of this, but I'm not quite sure how
> bulletproof they are.  Some of it appears to just be optimizations.
> 
> 
> 
b