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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20200928124937.GN9916@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Mon, 28 Sep 2020 09:49:37 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing 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>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Introduce mm_struct.has_pinned

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:45:30AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:16 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Btw, I'm not convinced about the whole "turn the pte read-only and
> > then back". If the fork races with another thread doing a pinning
> > fast-GUP on another CPU, there are memory ordering issues etc too.
> > That's not necessarily visible on x86 (the "turn read-only being a
> > locked op will force serialization), but it all looks dodgy as heck.

Oh. Yes, looking again the atomics in the final arrangement of
copy_present_page() aren't going to be strong enough to order this.

Sorry for missing, wasn't able to look very deeply during the weekend.

Not seeing an obvious option besides adding a smp_mb() before
page_maybe_dma_pinned() as Peter once suggested.

> .. looking at it more, I also think it could possibly lose the dirty
> bit for the case where another CPU did a HW dirty/accessed bit update
> in between the original read of the pte, and then us writing back the
> writable pte again.

Ah, I see:

               set_pte_at(src_mm, addr, src_pte, pte);

wants to be some arch specific single bit ptep_clear_wrprotect()..

Thanks,
Jason