linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/8] Hardening page

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: <YXhhbSSRQrG5Av6P@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 21:13:33 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        william.kucharski@...cle.com,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        schmitzmic@...il.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, songmuchun@...edance.com,
        weixugc@...gle.com, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Hardening page _refcount

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 02:30:25PM -0400, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 2:24 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > I think this is overkill.  Won't we get exactly the same protection
> > by simply testing that page->_refcount == 0 in set_page_count()?
> > Anything which triggers that BUG_ON would already be buggy because
> > it can race with speculative gets.
> 
> We can't because set_page_count(v) is used for
> 1. changing _refcount form a current value to unconstrained v
> 2.  initialize _refcount from undefined state to v.
> 
> In this work we forbid the first case, and reduce the second case to
> initialize only to 1.

Anything that is calling set_page_refcount() on something which is
not 0 is buggy today.  There are several ways to increment the page
refcount speculatively if it is not 0.  eg lockless GUP and page cache
reads.  So we could have:

CPU 0: alloc_page() (refcount now 1)
CPU 1: get_page_unless_zero() (refcount now 2)
CPU 0: set_page_refcount(5) (refcount now 5)
CPU 1: put_page() (refcount now 4)

Now the refcount is wrong.  So it is *only* safe to call
set_page_refcount() if the refcount is 0.  If you can find somewhere
that's calling set_page_refcount() on a non-0 refcount, that's a bug
that needs to be fixed.