linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/hugetlb: Fix cow where page writtable in child

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: <ba559981-326c-3c96-3885-fe2826f8d34e@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 May 2021 15:10:04 -0700
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/hugetlb: Fix cow where page writtable in child

On 5/3/21 2:41 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 01:53:03PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 5/1/21 7:41 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> When fork() and copy hugetlb page range, we'll remember to wrprotect src pte if
>>> needed, however we forget about the child!  Without it, the child will be able
>>> to write to parent's pages when mapped as PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE and MAP_PRIVATE,
>>> which will cause data corruption in the parent process.
>>>
>>> This issue can also be exposed by "memfd_test hugetlbfs" kselftest (if it can
>>> pass the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE test first, though).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  mm/hugetlb.c | 2 ++
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>
>> I think we need to add, "Fixes: 4eae4efa2c29" as this is now in v5.12
> 
> I could be mistaken, but my understanding is it's broken from the most initial
> cow support of hugetlbfs in 2006...  So if we want a fixes tag, maybe this?
> 
> Fixes: 1e8f889b10d8d ("[PATCH] Hugetlb: Copy on Write support")
> 

Here is why I think it was broken in 4eae4efa2c29.  Prior to that commit
the code looked like this:

			if (cow) {
				/*
				 * No need to notify as we are downgrading page
				 * table protection not changing it to point
				 * to a new page.
				 *
				 * See Documentation/vm/mmu_notifier.rst
				 */
				huge_ptep_set_wrprotect(src, addr, src_pte);
			}
			entry = huge_ptep_get(src_pte);
			ptepage = pte_page(entry);
			get_page(ptepage);
			page_dup_rmap(ptepage, true);
			set_huge_pte_at(dst, addr, dst_pte, entry);
			hugetlb_count_add(pages_per_huge_page(h), dst);

After setting the wrprotect in the source pte, we 'huge_ptep_get' the
source to create the destination.  Hence, wrprotect will be set in the
destination as well.  It is perhaps not the most efficient, but
I think it 'works'.

It is subtle, or am I missing something?
-- 
Mike Kravetz