[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjG7xx7Gsb=K0DteB1SPcKjus02zY2gFUoxMY5mm7tfsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:01:45 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
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 3:50 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> See zap_pte_range() for an example of doing it right, even in the
> presence of complexities (ie that has an example of both flushing the
> TLB, and doing the actual "free the pages after flush", and it does
> the two cases separately).
The more I look at the mprotect code, the less I like it. We seem to
be much better about the TLB flushes in other places (looking at
mremap, for example). The mprotect code seems to be very laissez-faire
about the TLB flushing.
Does adding a TLB flush to before that
pte_unmap_unlock(pte - 1, ptl);
fix things for you?
That's not the right fix - leaving a stale TLB entry around is fine if
the TLB entry is more strict wrt protections - but it might be worth
testing as a "does it at least close the problem" patch.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists