linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: protect free_pgtables with mmap_lock write lock in exit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFeKV5Kz-ssEcqDQm_omJz2Q1+Shcpkcbg0vshAha4CAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Dec 2021 13:24:37 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        rientjes@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, guro@...com,
        riel@...riel.com, minchan@...nel.org, kirill@...temov.name,
        aarcange@...hat.com, christian@...uner.io, hch@...radead.org,
        oleg@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org, christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
        fweimer@...hat.com, jengelh@...i.de, timmurray@...gle.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: protect free_pgtables with mmap_lock write
 lock in exit_mmap

On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 11:22 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 11:13:42AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 8:50 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 8:05 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 04:51:58PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Wed 08-12-21 15:01:24, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 03:08:19PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > > > >         /**
> > > > > > > > >          * @close: Called when the VMA is being removed from the MM.
> > > > > > > > >          * Context: Caller holds mmap_lock.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BTW, is the caller always required to hold mmap_lock for write or it
> > > > > > > *might* hold it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __do_munmap() might hold it for read, thanks to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         if (downgrade)
> > > > > >                 mmap_write_downgrade(mm);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should probably say:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     * Context: User context.  May sleep.  Caller holds mmap_lock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think we should burden the implementor of the vm_ops with the
> > > > > > knowledge that the VM chooses to not hold the mmap_lock under certain
> > > > > > circumstances when it doesn't matter whether it's holding the mmap_lock
> > > > > > or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we document it like that some code might depend on that lock to be
> > > > > held. I think we only want to document that the holder itself is not
> > > > > allowed to take mmap sem or a depending lock.
> > > >
> > > > The only place where we're not currently holding the mmap_lock is at
> > > > task exit, where the mmap_lock is effectively held because nobody else
> > > > can modify the task's mm.  Besides, Suren is changing that in this patch
> > > > series anyway, so it will be always true.
> > >
> > > Ok, I'll make it a separate patch after the patch that changes
> > > exit_mmap and this statement will become always true. Sounds
> > > reasonable?
> >
> > Actually, while today vma_ops->close is called with mmap_lock held, I
> > believe we want this comment to reflect the restrictions on the
> > callback itself, not on the user. IOW, we want to say that the
> > callback should not take mmap_lock while the caller might or might not
> > hold it. If so, I think *might* would make more sense here, like this:
> >
> > * Context: User context.  May sleep.  Caller might hold mmap_lock.
> >
> > WDYT?
>
> We're documenting the contract between the caller and the callee.
> That implies responsibilities on both sides.  For example, we're
> placing requirements on the caller that they're not going to tear
> down the VMA in interrupt context.  So I preferred what previous-Suren
> said to current-Suren, "this statement will become always true".
>

previous-Suren posted v4 at
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211208212211.2860249-1-surenb@google.com
Thanks!