linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Trial do_wp

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, 17 Sep 2020 11:26:01 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Maya B . Gokhale" <gokhale2@...l.gov>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Marty Mcfadden <mcfadden8@...l.gov>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Trial do_wp_page() simplification

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:14 AM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> In my humble opinion, the real solution is still to use MADV_DONTFORK properly
> so we should never share the DMA pages with others when we know the fact.

Is this all just because somebody does a fork() after doing page pinning?

If so, I feel this should be trivially fixed in  copy_one_pte().
That's where we currently do

        /*
         * If it's a COW mapping, write protect it both
         * in the parent and the child
         */
        if (is_cow_mapping(vm_flags) && pte_write(pte)) {
                ptep_set_wrprotect(src_mm, addr, src_pte);
                pte = pte_wrprotect(pte);
        }

and I feel that that is where we could just change the code to do a
COW event for pinned pages (and *not* mark the parent write protected,
since the parent page now isn't a COW page).

Because if that's the case that Jason is hitting, then I feel that
really is the correct fix: make sure that the pinning action is
meaningful.

As mentioned, I really think the whole (and only) point of page
pinning is that it should keep the page locked in the page tables. And
by "locked" I mean exactly that: not just present, but writable.

And then the "we never COW a pinned page" comes not from the COW code
doing magic, but by it simply never becoming non-writable - because
the page table entry is locked!

               Linus