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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 17 Jan 2021 18:49:53 -0800
From:   Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.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>, surenb@...gle.com,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, cai@....pw
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect

> On Jan 17, 2021, at 11:25 AM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:13:43AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 2021, at 1:16 AM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:32:22PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 16, 2021, at 8:41 PM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:43:38PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:38:34PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 12, 2021, at 11:56 AM, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:15:43AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I will send an RFC soon for per-table deferred TLB flushes tracking.
>>>>>>>>> The basic idea is to save a generation in the page-struct that tracks
>>>>>>>>> when deferred PTE change took place, and track whenever a TLB flush
>>>>>>>>> completed. In addition, other users - such as mprotect - would use
>>>>>>>>> the tlb_gather interface.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, due to limited space in page-struct this would only
>>>>>>>>> be possible for 64-bit (and my implementation is only for x86-64).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't want to discourage you but I don't think this would end up
>>>>>>>> well. PPC doesn't necessarily follow one-page-struct-per-table rule,
>>>>>>>> and I've run into problems with this before while trying to do
>>>>>>>> something similar.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Discourage, discourage. Better now than later.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It will be relatively easy to extend the scheme to be per-VMA instead of
>>>>>>> per-table for architectures that prefer it this way. It does require
>>>>>>> TLB-generation tracking though, which Andy only implemented for x86, so I
>>>>>>> will focus on x86-64 right now.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can you remind me of what we're missing on arm64 in this area, please? I'm
>>>>>> happy to help get this up and running once you have something I can build
>>>>>> on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I noticed arm/arm64 don't support ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH.
>>>>> Would it be something worth pursuing? Arm has been using mm_cpumask,
>>>>> so it might not be too difficult I guess?
>>>> 
>>>> [ +Mel Gorman who implemented ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH ]
>>>> 
>>>> IIUC, there are at least two bugs in x86 implementation.
>>>> 
>>>> First, there is a missing memory barrier in tlbbatch_add_mm() between
>>>> inc_mm_tlb_gen() and the read of mm_cpumask().
>>> 
>>> In arch_tlbbatch_add_mm()? inc_mm_tlb_gen() has builtin barrier as its
>>> comment says -- atomic update ops that return values are also full
>>> memory barriers.
>> 
>> Yes, you are correct.
>> 
>>>> Second, try_to_unmap_flush() clears flush_required after flushing. Another
>>>> thread can call set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending() after the flush and before
>>>> flush_required is cleared, and the indication that a TLB flush is pending
>>>> can be lost.
>>> 
>>> This isn't a problem either because flush_required is per thread.
>> 
>> Sorry, I meant mm->tlb_flush_batched . It is not per-thread.
>> flush_tlb_batched_pending() clears it after flush and indications that
>> set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending() sets in between can be lost.
> 
> Hmm, the PTL argument above flush_tlb_batched_pending() doesn't seem
> to hold when USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS is set. Do you have a reproducer?
> KCSAN might be able to help in this case.

I do not have a reproducer. It is just based on my understanding of this
code.

I will give a short try for building a reproducer, although for some reason
“you guys” complain that my reproducers do not work for you (is it PTI that
I disable? idle=poll? running in a VM?). It is also not likely to be too
easy to build a reproducer that actually triggers a memory corruption.

Anyhow, apparently KCSAN has already shouted about this code, causing Qian
Cai to add "data_race()" to avoid KCSAN from shouting (9c1177b62a8c
"mm/rmap: annotate a data race at tlb_flush_batched”).

Note that Andrea asked me not to hijack this thread and have a different one
on this issue.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists