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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20201223155235.GC6404@xz-x1>
Date:   Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:52:35 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.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>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 08:36:04PM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote:
> In your patch, do we need to take wrprotect_rwsem in
> handle_userfault() as well? Otherwise, it seems userspace would have
> to synchronize between its wrprotect ioctl and fault handler? i.e.,
> the fault hander needs to be aware that the content of write-
> protected pages can actually change before the iotcl returns.

The handle_userfault() thread should be sleeping until another uffd_wp_resolve
fixes the page fault for it.  However when the uffd_wp_resolve ioctl comes,
then rwsem (either the group rwsem lock as Andrea proposed, or the mmap_sem, or
any new rwsem lock we'd like to introduce, maybe per-uffd rather than per-mm)
should have guaranteed the previous wr-protect ioctls are finished and tlb must
have been flushed until this thread continues.

And I don't know why it matters even if the data changed - IMHO what uffd-wp
wants to do is simply to make sure after wr-protect ioctl returns to userspace,
no change on the page should ever happen anymore.  So "whether data changed"
seems matter more on the ioctl thread rather than the handle_userfault()
thread.  IOW, I think data changes before tlb flush but after pte wr-protect is
always fine - but that's not fine anymore if the syscall returns.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu