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:   Wed, 23 Dec 2020 19:30:39 -0800
From:   Nadav Amit <>
To:     Andrea Arcangeli <>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <>, Yu Zhao <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Peter Xu <>, linux-mm <>,
        lkml <>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <>,
        Mike Kravetz <>,
        Mike Rapoport <>,
        stable <>,
        Minchan Kim <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect

> On Dec 23, 2020, at 7:09 PM, Nadav Amit <> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 2020, at 6:00 PM, Andrea Arcangeli <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 05:21:43PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> I don’t love this as a long term fix. AFAICT we can have mm_tlb_flush_pending set for quite a while — mprotect seems like it can wait in IO while splitting a huge page, for example. That gives us a window in which every write fault turns into a TLB flush.
>> mprotect can't run concurrently with a page fault in the first place.
>> One other near zero cost improvement easy to add if this would be "if
>> (vma->vm_flags & (VM_SOFTDIRTY|VM_UFFD_WP))" and it could be made
>> conditional to the two config options too.
>> Still I don't mind doing it in some other way, uffd-wp has much easier
>> time doing it in another way in fact.
>> Whatever performs better is fine, but queuing up pending invalidate
>> ranges don't look very attractive since it'd be a fixed cost that we'd
>> always have to pay even when there's no fault (and there can't be any
>> fault at least for mprotect).
> I think there are other cases in which Andy’s concern is relevant
> Perhaps holding some small bitmap based on part of the deferred flushed
> pages (e.g., bits 12-17 of the address or some other kind of a single
> hash-function bloom-filter) would be more performant to avoid (most)
> unnecessary TLB flushes. It will be cleared before a TLB flush and set while
> holding the PTL.
> Checking if a flush is needed, under the PTL, would require a single memory
> access (although potentially cache miss). It will however require one atomic
> operation for each page-table whose PTEs’ flushes are deferred - in contrast
> to the current scheme which requires two atomic operations for the *entire*
> operation.

Just to finish my thought - clearing the bitmap is the tricky part,
which I still did not figure out.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists