linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Introduce mm_struct.has

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200922142802.GC19098@xz-x1>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:28:02 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Introduce mm_struct.has_pinned

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 08:54:36AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:47:11AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:30 AM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:43:38PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:17 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > > (Commit message collected from Jason Gunthorpe)
> > > > >
> > > > > Reduce the chance of false positive from page_maybe_dma_pinned() by keeping
> > > > > track if the mm_struct has ever been used with pin_user_pages(). mm_structs
> > > > > that have never been passed to pin_user_pages() cannot have a positive
> > > > > page_maybe_dma_pinned() by definition.
> > > >
> > > > There are some caveats here, right? E.g. this isn't necessarily true
> > > > for pagecache pages, I think?
> > >
> > > Sorry I didn't follow here.  Could you help explain with some details?
> > 
> > The commit message says "mm_structs that have never been passed to
> > pin_user_pages() cannot have a positive page_maybe_dma_pinned() by
> > definition"; but that is not true for pages which may also be mapped
> > in a second mm and may have been passed to pin_user_pages() through
> > that second mm (meaning they must be writable over there and not
> > shared with us via CoW).
> 
> The message does need a few more words to explain this trick can only
> be used with COW'able pages.
>  
> > Process A:
> > 
> > fd_a = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR);
> > mapping_a = mmap(NULL, 0x1000, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd_a, 0);
> > pin_user_pages(mapping_a, 1, ...);
> > 
> > Process B:
> > 
> > fd_b = open("/foo/bar", O_RDONLY);
> > mapping_b = mmap(NULL, 0x1000, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE, fd_b, 0);
> > *(volatile char *)mapping_b;
> > 
> > At this point, process B has never called pin_user_pages(), but
> > page_maybe_dma_pinned() on the page at mapping_b would return true.
> 
> My expectation is the pin_user_pages() should have already broken the
> COW for the MAP_PRIVATE, so process B should not have a
> page_maybe_dma_pinned()

When process B maps with PROT_READ only (w/o PROT_WRITE) then it seems the same
page will be mapped.

I think I get the point from Jann now.  Maybe it's easier I just remove the
whole "mm_structs that have never been passed to pin_user_pages() cannot have a
positive page_maybe_dma_pinned() by definition" sentence if that's misleading,
because the rest seem to be clear enough on what this new field is used for.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu