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: <20210105150813.GB149908@xz-x1>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:08:13 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        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 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.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu