linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v19 5/8] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas

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: <00644dd8-edac-d3fd-a080-0a175fa9bf13@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 May 2021 12:35:36 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 5/8] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create
 "secret" memory areas

On 18.05.21 12:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 18-05-21 12:06:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 18.05.21 11:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Sun 16-05-21 10:29:24, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 11:25:43AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> +		if (!page)
>>>>>> +			return VM_FAULT_OOM;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		err = set_direct_map_invalid_noflush(page, 1);
>>>>>> +		if (err) {
>>>>>> +			put_page(page);
>>>>>> +			return vmf_error(err);
>>>>>
>>>>> Would we want to translate that to a proper VM_FAULT_..., which would most
>>>>> probably be VM_FAULT_OOM when we fail to allocate a pagetable?
>>>>
>>>> That's what vmf_error does, it translates -ESOMETHING to VM_FAULT_XYZ.
>>>
>>> I haven't read through the rest but this has just caught my attention.
>>> Is it really reasonable to trigger the oom killer when you cannot
>>> invalidate the direct mapping. From a quick look at the code it is quite
>>> unlikely to se ENOMEM from that path (it allocates small pages) but this
>>> can become quite sublte over time. Shouldn't this simply SIGBUS if it
>>> cannot manipulate the direct mapping regardless of the underlying reason
>>> for that?
>>>
>>
>> OTOH, it means our kernel zones are depleted, so we'd better reclaim somehow
>> ...
> 
> Killing a userspace seems to be just a bad way around that.
> 
> Although I have to say openly that I am not a great fan of VM_FAULT_OOM
> in general. It is usually a a wrong way to tell the handle the failure
> because it happens outside of the allocation context so you lose all the
> details (e.g. allocation constrains, numa policy etc.). Also whenever
> there is ENOMEM then the allocation itself has already made sure that
> all the reclaim attempts have been already depleted. Just consider an
> allocation with GFP_NOWAIT/NO_RETRY or similar to fail and propagate
> ENOMEM up the call stack. Turning that into the OOM killer sounds like a
> bad idea to me.  But that is a more general topic. I have tried to bring
> this up in the past but there was not much of an interest to fix it as
> it was not a pressing problem...
> 

I'm certainly interested; it would mean that we actually want to try 
recovering from VM_FAULT_OOM in various cases, and as you state, we 
might have to supply more information to make that work reliably.

Having that said, I guess what we have here is just the same as when our 
process fails to allocate a generic page table in __handle_mm_fault(), 
when we fail p4d_alloc() and friends ...

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb