linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 05/19] iov_iter: Introduce fault_in_iov_iter

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:   Fri, 27 Aug 2021 16:22:46 -0700
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/19] iov_iter: Introduce fault_in_iov_iter_writeable

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 09:57:10PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 09:48:55PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > 	[btrfs]search_ioctl()
> > Broken with memory poisoning, for either variant of semantics.  Same for
> > arm64 sub-page permission differences, I think.
> 
> 
> > So we have 3 callers where we want all-or-nothing semantics - two in
> > arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c and one in btrfs.  HWPOISON will be a problem
> > for all 3, AFAICS...
> > 
> > IOW, it looks like we have two different things mixed here - one that wants
> > to try and fault stuff in, with callers caring only about having _something_
> > faulted in (most of the users) and one that wants to make sure we *can* do
> > stores or loads on each byte in the affected area.
> > 
> > Just accessing a byte in each page really won't suffice for the second kind.
> > Neither will g-u-p use, unless we teach it about HWPOISON and other fun
> > beasts...  Looks like we want that thing to be a separate primitive; for
> > btrfs I'd probably replace fault_in_pages_writeable() with clear_user()
> > as a quick fix for now...
> > 
> > Comments?
> 
> Wait a sec...  Wasn't HWPOISON a per-page thing?  arm64 definitely does have
> smaller-than-page areas with different permissions, so btrfs search_ioctl()
> has a problem there, but arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c doesn't have to deal
> with that...
> 
> Sigh...  I really need more coffee...

On Intel poison is tracked at the cache line granularity. Linux
inflates that to per-page (because it can only take a whole page away).
For faults triggered in ring3 this is pretty much the same thing because
mm/memory_failure.c unmaps the page ... so while you see a #MC on first
access, you get #PF when you retry. The x86 fault handler sees a magic
signature in the page table and sends a SIGBUS.

But it's all different if the #MC is triggerd from ring0. The machine
check handler can't unmap the page. It just schedules task_work to do
the unmap when next returning to the user.

But if your kernel code loops and tries again without a return to user,
then your get another #MC.

-Tony