linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect

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 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:   Sat, 19 Dec 2020 21:08:55 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 6:49 PM Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 06:01:39PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > I missed the beginning of this thread, but it looks to me like
> > userfaultfd changes PTEs with not locking except mmap_read_lock().  It
>
> There's no mmap_read_lock, I assume you mean mmap_lock for reading.

Yes.

>
> The ptes are changed always with the PT lock, in fact there's no
> problem with the PTE updates. The only difference with mprotect
> runtime is that the mmap_lock is taken for reading. And the effect
> contested for this change doesn't affect the PTE, but supposedly the
> tlb flushing deferral.

Can you point me at where the lock ends up being taken in this path?
I apparently missed it somewhere.

> Anyway to wait the wrprotect to do the deferred flush, before the
> unprotect can even start, one more mutex in the mm to take in all
> callers of change_protection_range with the mmap_lock for reading may
> be enough.

I'll read the code again tomorrow.