linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Avoid live-lock in fault-in+uaccess loops with sub-page faults

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: <20211124133600.94f0b9a6c611ee663c9a8d6d@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:36:00 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Avoid live-lock in fault-in+uaccess loops with
 sub-page faults

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 19:20:21 +0000 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> There are a few places in the filesystem layer where a uaccess is
> performed in a loop with page faults disabled, together with a
> fault_in_*() call to pre-fault the pages. On architectures like arm64
> with MTE (memory tagging extensions) or SPARC ADI, even if the
> fault_in_*() succeeded, the uaccess can still fault indefinitely.
> 
> In general this is not an issue since such code restarts the
> fault_in_*() from where the uaccess failed, therefore guaranteeing
> forward progress. The btrfs search_ioctl(), however, rewinds the
> fault_in_*() position and it can live-lock. This was reported by Al
> here:

Btrfs livelock on some-of-arm sounds fairly serious.  Should we
backport this?  If so, a48b73eca4ce ("btrfs: fix potential deadlock in
the search ioctl") appears to be a suitable Fixes: target?