| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:19:55 -0800
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Chinwen Chang <chinwen.chang@...iatek.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
Shawn Anastasio <shawn@...stas.io>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Adam Ruprecht <ruprecht@...gle.com>,
Cannon Matthews <cannonmatthews@...gle.com>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] hugetlb/userfaultfd: Forbid huge pmd sharing
when uffd enabled
On 2/10/21 1:21 PM, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
>
> Huge pmd sharing could bring problem to userfaultfd. The thing is that
> userfaultfd is running its logic based on the special bits on page table
> entries, however the huge pmd sharing could potentially share page table
> entries for different address ranges. That could cause issues on either:
>
> - When sharing huge pmd page tables for an uffd write protected range, the
> newly mapped huge pmd range will also be write protected unexpectedly, or,
>
> - When we try to write protect a range of huge pmd shared range, we'll first
> do huge_pmd_unshare() in hugetlb_change_protection(), however that also
> means the UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT could be silently skipped for the shared
> region, which could lead to data loss.
>
> Since at it, a few other things are done altogether:
>
> - Move want_pmd_share() from mm/hugetlb.c into linux/hugetlb.h, because
> that's definitely something that arch code would like to use too
>
> - ARM64 currently directly check against CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE when
> trying to share huge pmd. Switch to the want_pmd_share() helper.
>
> Since at it, move vma_shareable() from huge_pmd_share() into want_pmd_share().
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 3 +--
> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 2 ++
> include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h | 9 +++++++++
> mm/hugetlb.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> index 6e3bcffe2837..58987a98e179 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> @@ -284,8 +284,7 @@ pte_t *huge_pte_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> */
> ptep = pte_alloc_map(mm, pmdp, addr);
> } else if (sz == PMD_SIZE) {
> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE) &&
> - pud_none(READ_ONCE(*pudp)))
> + if (want_pmd_share(vma, addr) && pud_none(READ_ONCE(*pudp)))
> ptep = huge_pmd_share(mm, vma, addr, pudp);
> else
> ptep = (pte_t *)pmd_alloc(mm, pudp, addr);
> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> index ca6e5ba56f73..d971e7efd17d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> @@ -1030,4 +1030,6 @@ static inline __init void hugetlb_cma_check(void)
> }
> #endif
>
> +bool want_pmd_share(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr);
> +
> #endif /* _LINUX_HUGETLB_H */
> diff --git a/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h b/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
> index a8e5f3ea9bb2..c63ccdae3eab 100644
> --- a/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
> +++ b/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
> @@ -52,6 +52,15 @@ static inline bool is_mergeable_vm_userfaultfd_ctx(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> return vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx == vm_ctx.ctx;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Never enable huge pmd sharing on uffd-wp registered vmas, because uffd-wp
> + * protect information is per pgtable entry.
> + */
> +static inline bool uffd_disable_huge_pmd_share(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +{
> + return vma->vm_flags & VM_UFFD_WP;
> +}
> +
> static inline bool userfaultfd_missing(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> {
> return vma->vm_flags & VM_UFFD_MISSING;
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index 32d4d2e277ad..5710286e1984 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -5245,6 +5245,18 @@ static bool vma_shareable(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr)
> return false;
> }
>
> +bool want_pmd_share(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr)
> +{
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE
> + return false;
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_USERFAULTFD
> + if (uffd_disable_huge_pmd_share(vma))
> + return false;
> +#endif
> + return vma_shareable(vma, addr);
> +}
> +
This code certainly does the right thing, however I wonder if it should
be structured a little differently.
want_pmd_share() is currently just a check for CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE.
How about leaving that mostly as is, and adding the new vma checks to
vma_shareable(). vma_shareable() would then be something like:
if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE))
return false;
#ifdef CONFIG_USERFAULTFD
if (uffd_disable_huge_pmd_share(vma)
return false;
#endif
#ifdef /* XXX */
/* add other checks for things like uffd wp and soft dirty here */
#endif /* XXX */
if (range_in_vma(vma, base, end)
return true;
return false;
Of course, this would require we leave the call to vma_shareable() at the
beginning of huge_pmd_share. It also means that we are always making a
function call into huge_pmd_share to determine if sharing is possible.
That is not any different than today. If we do not want to make that extra
function call, then I would suggest putting all that code in want_pmd_share.
It just seems that all the vma checks for sharing should be in one place
if possible.
--
Mike Kravetz
> /*
> * Determine if start,end range within vma could be mapped by shared pmd.
> * If yes, adjust start and end to cover range associated with possible
> @@ -5301,9 +5313,6 @@ pte_t *huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> pte_t *pte;
> spinlock_t *ptl;
>
> - if (!vma_shareable(vma, addr))
> - return (pte_t *)pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
> -
> i_mmap_assert_locked(mapping);
> vma_interval_tree_foreach(svma, &mapping->i_mmap, idx, idx) {
> if (svma == vma)
> @@ -5367,7 +5376,7 @@ int huge_pmd_unshare(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> *addr = ALIGN(*addr, HPAGE_SIZE * PTRS_PER_PTE) - HPAGE_SIZE;
> return 1;
> }
> -#define want_pmd_share() (1)
> +
> #else /* !CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE */
> pte_t *huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct vma,
> unsigned long addr, pud_t *pud)
> @@ -5385,7 +5394,6 @@ void adjust_range_if_pmd_sharing_possible(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long *start, unsigned long *end)
> {
> }
> -#define want_pmd_share() (0)
> #endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_GENERAL_HUGETLB
> @@ -5407,7 +5415,7 @@ pte_t *huge_pte_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> pte = (pte_t *)pud;
> } else {
> BUG_ON(sz != PMD_SIZE);
> - if (want_pmd_share() && pud_none(*pud))
> + if (want_pmd_share(vma, addr) && pud_none(*pud))
> pte = huge_pmd_share(mm, vma, addr, pud);
> else
> pte = (pte_t *)pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists