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]

Date:   Mon, 21 Dec 2020 19:19:35 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 3:22 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:30 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > AFAIU mprotect() is the only one who modifies the pte using the mmap write
> > lock.  NUMA balancing is also using read mmap lock when changing pte
> > protections, while my understanding is mprotect() used write lock only because
> > it manipulates the address space itself (aka. vma layout) rather than modifying
> > the ptes, so it needs to.
>
> So it's ok to change the pte holding only the PTE lock, if it's a
> *one*way* conversion.
>
> That doesn't break the "re-check the PTE contents" model (which
> predates _all_ of the rest: NUMA, userfaultfd, everything - it's
> pretty much the original model for our page table operations, and goes
> back to the dark ages even before SMP and the existence of a page
> table lock).
>
> So for example, a COW will always create a different pte (not just
> because the page number itself changes - you could imagine a page
> getting re-used and changing back - but because it's always a RO->RW
> transition).
>
> So two COW operations cannot "undo" each other and fool us into
> thinking nothing changed.
>
> Anything that changes RW->RO - like fork(), for example - needs to
> take the mmap_lock.

Ugh, this is unpleasantly complicated.  I will admit that any API that
takes an address and more-or-less-blindly marks it RO makes me quite
nervous even assuming all the relevant locks are held.  At least
userfaultfd refuses to operate on VM_SHARED VMAs, but we have another
instance of this (with mmap_sem held for write) in x86:
mark_screen_rdonly().  Dare I ask how broken this is?  We could likely
get away with deleting it entirely.

--Andy