linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix potential pte_unmap

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:04:19 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     <tglx@...utronix.de>, <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix potential pte_unmap_unlock pte error

Hi:
On 2021/1/24 10:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 16:27:23 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Andrew:
>> On 2021/1/14 10:51, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>> Hi:
>>> On 2021/1/11 1:14, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 03:01:18AM -0500, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>> Since commit 42e4089c7890 ("x86/speculation/l1tf: Disallow non privileged
>>>>> high MMIO PROT_NONE mappings"), when the first pfn modify is not allowed,
>>>>> we would break the loop with pte unchanged. Then the wrong pte - 1 would
>>>>> be passed to pte_unmap_unlock.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> While the fix is correct, I'm not sure if it actually is a real bug. Is there
>>>> any architecture that would do something else than unlocking the underlying
>>>> page?  If it's just the underlying page then it should be always the same
>>>> page, so no bug.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's just a theoretical issue via code inspection.
>>
>> Should I send a new one without Cc statle or just drop this patch? Thanks.
> 
> Your patch makes the code much less scary looking.  I added Andi's
> observation to the changelog, removed the cc:stable and queued it up,
> thanks.
> 
> .
> 

Sounds reasonable. Many thanks for doing this!