linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] 4.14 backports of fixes for "CoW after fork() issue"

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]

Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:59:35 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] 4.14 backports of fixes for "CoW after fork() issue"

On 4/21/21 10:01 PM, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 2:53 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:23 PM Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:47 AM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > So, we fixed it, but we don't know why.
>> > >
>> > > Peter Xu's patchset that fixed it is here:
>> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200821234958.7896-1-peterx@redhat.com/
>> >
>> > Yeah, that's the part that ends up being really painful to backport
>> > (with all the subsequent fixes too), so the 4.14 people would prefer
>> > to avoid it.
>> >
>> > But I think that if it's a "requires dax pmem and ptrace on top", it
>> > may simply be a non-issue for those users. Although who knows - maybe
>> > that ends up being a real issue on Android..
>>
>> A lot to digest, so I need to do some reading now. Thanks everyone!
> 
> After a delay due to vacation I prepared backports of 17839856fd58
> ("gup: document and work around "COW can break either way" issue") for
> 4.14 and 4.19 kernels. As Linus pointed out, uffd-wp was introduced
> later in 5.7, so is not an issue for 4.x kernels. The issue with THPs
> is still unresolved, so with or without this patch it's still there
> (Android is not affected by this since we do not use THPs with older
> kernels).

Which THP issue do you mean here? The race that was part of the same Project
zero report and was solved by a different patch adding some locking? Or the
vmsplice info leak but applied to THP's? Because if it's the latter then I
believe 17839856fd58 did solve that too. It was the later switch of approach to
rely just on page_count() that left THP side unfixed.

> Andrea pointed out that there are other issues and to properly fix
> them his COR approach is needed. However it has not been accepted yet,
> so I can't really backport it. I'll be happy to do that though if it
> is accepted in the future.
> 
> Peter, you mentioned https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/10/439 patch to
> distinguish real writes vs enforced COW read requests, however I also
> see that you had a later version of this patch here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1286506/. Which one should I
> backport? Or is it not needed in the absence of uffd-wp support in the
> earlier kernels?
> Thanks,
> Suren.
> 
>>
>> >
>> >             Linus
>