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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <ec912505-ed4d-a45d-2ed4-7586919da4de@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:02:24 +0100
From:   Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.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>, surenb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect

Le 12/01/2021 à 17:57, Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:47:17PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> Le 12/01/2021 à 12:43, Vinayak Menon a écrit :
> 
>>> Possibility of race against other PTE modifiers
>>>
>>> 1) Fork - We have seen a case of SPF racing with fork marking PTEs RO and that
>>> is described and fixed here https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1062672/
> 
> Right, that's exactly the kind of thing I was worried about.
> 
>>> 2) mprotect - change_protection in mprotect which does the deferred flush is
>>> marked under vm_write_begin/vm_write_end, thus SPF bails out on faults
>>> on those VMAs.
> 
> Sure, mprotect also changes vm_flags, so it really needs that anyway.
> 
>>> 3) userfaultfd - mwriteprotect_range is not protected unlike in (2) above.
>>> But SPF does not take UFFD faults.
>>> 4) hugetlb - hugetlb_change_protection - called from mprotect and covered by
>>> (2) above.
> 
>>> 5) Concurrent faults - SPF does not handle all faults. Only anon page faults.
> 
> What happened to shared/file-backed stuff? ISTR I had that working.

File-backed mappings are not processed in a speculative way, there were options 
to manage some of them depending on the underlying file system but that's still 
not done.

Shared anonymous mapping, are also not yet handled in a speculative way (vm_ops 
is not null).

>>> Of which do_anonymous_page and do_swap_page are NONE/NON-PRESENT->PRESENT
>>> transitions without tlb flush. And I hope do_wp_page with RO->RW is fine as well.
> 
> The tricky one is demotion, specifically write to non-write.
> 
>>> I could not see a case where speculative path cannot see a PTE update done via
>>> a fault on another CPU.
> 
> One you didn't mention is the NUMA balancing scanning crud; although I
> think that's fine, loosing a PTE update there is harmless. But I've not
> thought overly hard on it.

That's a good point, I need to double check on that side.

>> You explained it fine. Indeed SPF is handling deferred TLB invalidation by
>> marking the VMA through vm_write_begin/end(), as for the fork case you
>> mentioned. Once the PTL is held, and the VMA's seqcount is checked, the PTE
>> values read are valid.
> 
> That should indeed work, but are we really sure we covered them all?
> Should we invest in better TLBI APIs to make sure we can't get this
> wrong?

That may be a good option to identify deferred TLB invalidation but I've no clue 
on what this API would look like.