linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86/mm: Sync all vmalloc mappings before text

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: <1902703609.78863.1588300015661.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 22:26:55 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shile Zhang <shile.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tz.stoyanov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86/mm: Sync all vmalloc mappings before
 text_poke()

----- On Apr 30, 2020, at 9:13 PM, rostedt rostedt@...dmis.org wrote:

> [ Joerg, sending again this time not just to you. (hit reply to sender
>  and not reply to all). Feel free to resend what you wrote before to this ]
> 
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:14:34 +0200
> Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de> wrote:
> 
>> And alloc_percpu() calls down into pcpu_alloc(), which allocates new
>> percpu chunks using vmalloc() on x86. And there we are again in the
>> vmalloc area.
> 
> So after a vmalloc() is made, should the page tables be synced?

Why should it ? Usually, the page fault handler is able to resolve the
resulting minor page faults lazily.

> 
> This is a rather subtle bug, and I don't think it should be the caller of
> percpu_alloc() that needs to call vmalloc_sync_mappings().

Who said tracing was easy ? ;-)

> What's your suggestion for a fix?

I know the question is not addressed to me, but here are my 2 cents:

It's subtle because ftrace is tracing the page fault handler through
tracepoints. It would not make sense to slow down all vmalloc or
percpu_alloc() just because tracing recurses when tracing page faults.

I think the right approach to solve this is to call vmalloc_sync_mappings()
before any vmalloc'd memory ends up being observable by instrumentation.
This can be achieved by adding a vmalloc_sync_mappings call on tracepoint
registration like I proposed in my patchset a few week ago:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200409193543.18115-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com

The tracers just have to make sure they perform their vmalloc'd memory
allocation before registering the tracepoint which can touch it, else they
need to issue vmalloc_sync_mappings() on their own before making the
newly allocated memory observable by instrumentation.

This approach is not new: register_die_notifier() does exactly that today.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com