linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 19/20] PCI/P2PDMA: introduce pci_mmap

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, 1 Oct 2021 10:48:56 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Jakowski Andrzej <andrzej.jakowski@...el.com>,
        Minturn Dave B <dave.b.minturn@...el.com>,
        Jason Ekstrand <jason@...kstrand.net>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Xiong Jianxin <jianxin.xiong@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Martin Oliveira <martin.oliveira@...eticom.com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <ckulkarnilinux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 19/20] PCI/P2PDMA: introduce pci_mmap_p2pmem()

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 09:36:52PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> Why would DAX want to do this in the first place?? This means the
> address space zap is much more important that just speeding up
> destruction, it is essential for correctness since the PTEs are not
> holding refcounts naturally...

It is not really for this series to fix, but I think the whole thing
is probably racy once you start allowing pte_special pages to be
accessed by GUP.

If we look at unmapping the PTE relative to GUP fast the important
sequence is how the TLB flushing doesn't decrement the page refcount
until after it knows any concurrent GUP fast is completed. This is
arch specific, eg it could be done async through a call_rcu handler.

This ensures that pages can't cross back into the free pool and be
reallocated until we know for certain that nobody is walking the PTEs
and could potentially take an additional reference on it. The scheme
cannot rely on the page refcount being 0 because oce it goes into the
free pool it could be immeidately reallocated back to a non-zero
refcount.

A DAX user that simply does an address space invalidation doesn't
sequence itself with any of this mechanism. So we can race with a
thread doing GUP fast and another thread re-cycling the page into
another use - creating a leakage of the page from one security context
to another.

This seems to be made worse for the pgmap stuff due to the wonky
refcount usage - at least if the refcount had dropped to zero gup fast
would be blocked for a time, but even that doesn't happen.

In short, I think using pg special for anything that can be returned
by gup fast (and maybe even gup!) is racy/wrong. We must have the
normal refcount mechanism work for correctness of the recycling flow.

I don't know why DAX did this, I think we should be talking about
udoing it all of it, not just the wonky refcounting Alistair and Felix
are working on, but also the use of MIXEDMAP and pte special for
struct page backed memory.

Jason