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 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: <X+EDslLVp9yRRru6@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Dec 2020 13:21:06 -0700
From:   Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        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>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:55:02AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:16 AM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nadav Amit found memory corruptions when running userfaultfd test above.
> > It seems to me the problem is related to commit 09854ba94c6a ("mm:
> > do_wp_page() simplification"). Can you please take a look? Thanks.
> >
> > TL;DR: it may not safe to make copies of singly mapped (non-COW) pages
> > when it's locked or has additional ref count because concurrent
> > clear_soft_dirty or change_pte_range may have removed pte_write but yet
> > to flush tlb.
> 
> Hmm. The TLB flush shouldn't actually matter, because anything that
> changes the writable bit had better be serialized by the page table
> lock.

Well, unfortunately we have places that use optimizations like

  inc_tlb_flush_pending()
    lock page table
      pte_wrprotect
  flush_tlb_range()
  dec_tlb_flush_pending()

which complicate things. And usually checking mm_tlb_flush_pending()
in addition to pte_write() (while holding page table lock) would fix
the similar problems. But for this one, doing so apparently isn't as
straightforward or the best solution.

> Yes, we often load the page table value without holding the page table
> lock (in order to know what we are going to do), but then before we
> finalize the operation, we then re-check - undet the page table lock -
> that the value we loaded still matches.
> 
> But I think I see what *MAY* be going on.  The userfaultfd
> mwriteprotect_range() code takes the mm lock for _reading_. Which
> means that you can have
> 
> Thread A     Thread B
> 
>  - fault starts. Sees write-protected pte, allocates memory, copies data
> 
>                    - userfaultfd makes the regions writable
> 
>                    - usefaultfd case writes to the region
> 
>                    - userfaultfd makes region non-writable
> 
>  - fault continues, gets the page table lock, sees that the pte is the
> same, uses old copied data
> 
> But if this is what's happening, I think it's a userfaultfd bug. I
> think the mmap_read_lock(dst_mm) in mwriteprotect_range() needs to be
> a mmap_write_lock().
> 
> mprotect() does this right, it looks like userfaultfd does not. You
> cannot just change the writability of a page willy-nilly without the
> correct locking.
> 
> Maybe there are other causes, but this one stands out to me as one
> possible cause.
> 
> Comments?
> 
>               Linus