linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] 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: <070CFD88-57A0-40FF-9614-6ED47B214301@vmware.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:07:51 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
CC:     linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to
 writeprotect

> On Jan 5, 2021, at 7:08 AM, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 01:25:28AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
>> index ab709023e9aa..c08c4055b051 100644
>> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
>> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
>> @@ -75,7 +75,8 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>> 		oldpte = *pte;
>> 		if (pte_present(oldpte)) {
>> 			pte_t ptent;
>> -			bool preserve_write = prot_numa && pte_write(oldpte);
>> +			bool preserve_write = (prot_numa || uffd_wp_resolve) &&
>> +					      pte_write(oldpte);
> 
> Irrelevant of the other tlb issue, this is a standalone one and I commented in
> v1 about simply ignore the change if necessary; unluckily that seems to be
> ignored..  so I'll try again - would below be slightly better?
> 
>    if (uffd_wp_resolve && !pte_uffd_wp(oldpte))
>        continue;
> 
> Firstly, current patch is confusing at least to me, because "uffd_wp_resolve"
> means "unprotect the pte", whose write bit should mostly be cleared already
> when uffd_wp_resolve is applicable.  Then "preserve_write" for that pte looks
> odd already.
> 
> Meanwhile, if that really happens (when pte write bit set, but during a
> uffd_wp_resolve request) imho there is really nothing we can do, so we should
> simply avoid touching that at all, and also avoid ptep_modify_prot_start,
> pte_modify, ptep_modify_prot_commit, calls etc., which takes extra cost.

Sorry for missing your feedback before. What you suggest makes perfect
sense.