linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] userfaultfd: prevent non-cooperative events vs mcopy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <83A6D439-F732-4112-BD1F-00195EBFCE4C@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Dec 2020 00:57:30 -0800
From:   Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] userfaultfd: prevent non-cooperative events vs
 mcopy_atomic races

> On Dec 8, 2020, at 12:34 AM, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 08:31:39PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Whenever I run into a non-standard and non-trivial synchronization algorithm
>> in the kernel (and elsewhere), I become very confused and concerned. I
>> raised my question since I wanted to modify the code and could not figure
>> out how to properly do so. Based on your input that the monitor is expected
>> to know the child mappings according to userfaultfd events, I now think that
>> the kernel does not provide this ability and the locking scheme is broken.
>> 
>> Here are some scenarios that I think are broken - please correct me if I am
>> wrong:
>> 
>> * Scenario 1: MADV_DONTNEED racing with userfaultfd page-faults
>> 
>> userfaultfd_remove() only holds the mmap_lock for read, so these events
>> cannot be ordered with userfaultfd page-faults.
>> 
>> * Scenario 2: MADV_DONTNEED racing with fork()
>> 
>> As userfaultfd_remove() releases mmap_lock after the user notification and
>> before the actual unmapping, concurrent fork() might happen before or after
>> the actual unmapping in MADV_DONTNEED and the user therefore has no way of
>> knowing whether the actual unmapping took place before or after the fork().
>> 
>> * Scenario 3: Concurrent MADV_DONTNEED can cause userfaultfd_remove() to
>> clear mmap_changing cleared before all the notifications are completed.
>> 
>> As mmap_lock is only taken for read, the first thread the completed
>> userfaultfd_remove() would clear the indication that was set by the other
>> one.
>> 
>> * Scenario 4: Fork starts and ends between copying of two pages.
>> 
>> As mmap_lock might be released during ioctl_copy() (inside
>> __mcopy_atomic()), some pages might be mapped in the child and others not:
>> 
>> 
>> CPU0				CPU1
>> ----				----
>> ioctl_copy():
>> __mcopy_atomic()
>>  mmap_read_lock()
>>  !mmap_changing [ok]
>>  mfill_atomic_pte() == 0 [page0 copied]
>>  mfill_atomic_pte() == -ENOENT [page1 will be retried]
>>  mmap_read_unlock()
>>  goto retry
>> 
>> 				fork():
>> 				 dup_userfaultfd()
>> 				 -> mmap_changing=true
>> 				 userfaultfd_event_wait_completion()
>> 				 -> mmap_changing=false
>> 
>>  mmap_read_lock()
>>  !mmap_changing [ok]
>>  mfill_atomic_pte() == 0 [page1 copied]
>>  mmap_read_unlock()
>> 
>> return: 2 pages were mapped, while the first is present in the child and
>> the second one is non-present.
>> 
>> Bottom-line: it seems to me that mmap_changing should be a counter (not
>> boolean) that is protected by mmap_lock. This counter should be kept
>> elevated throughout the entire operation (in regard to MADV_DONTNEED).
>> Perhaps mmap_lock does not have to be taken to decrease the counter, but
>> then an smp_wmb() would be needed before the counter is decreased.
>> 
>> Let me know whether I am completely off or missing something.
> 
> I tried to remember what's going on there and wrap my head around your
> examples. I'm not sure if userspace cannot workaround some of those, but
> I can't say I can propose it right now.
> 
> There is for sure userspace is helpless in Scenario 4, but I think it is
> very unlikely that fork() will be fast enough to grab and release
> mmap_lock while uffd_copy() waits for CPU to retry.
> 
> I agree that a making mmap_changing a counter would be more robust
> anyway.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

On a second thought, I think that a sequence lock would be required. I will
work on a patch to resolve it in the next RFC of the related patch series I
am working on.

As for the race window size, as there are lock optimizations to prevent
writers' starvation, I do not think the last scenario is completely
far-fetched.

Thanks again,
Nadav