linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arm64/mm: avoid fixmap race condition when create pud mapping

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: <CAMj1kXH0qTEiUyJLxr8YJhpWc_iLCN9-30KD_WTyUfKga9O3YA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:01:55 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>, Jia He <justin.he@....com>,
        nd <nd@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64/mm: avoid fixmap race condition when create pud mapping

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 14:45, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:35:16AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:16, Anshuman Khandual
> > <anshuman.khandual@....com> wrote:
> > > On 12/10/21 3:24 PM, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > > index acfae9b41cc8..98ac09ae9588 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> > > > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ static pmd_t bm_pmd[PTRS_PER_PMD] __page_aligned_bss __maybe_unused;
> > > >  static pud_t bm_pud[PTRS_PER_PUD] __page_aligned_bss __maybe_unused;
> > > >
> > > >  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(swapper_pgdir_lock);
> > > > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(fixmap_lock);
> > > >
> > > >  void set_swapper_pgd(pgd_t *pgdp, pgd_t pgd)
> > > >  {
> > > > @@ -329,6 +330,11 @@ static void alloc_init_pud(pgd_t *pgdp, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> > > >       }
> > > >       BUG_ON(p4d_bad(p4d));
> > > >
> > > > +     /*
> > > > +      * fixmap is global resource, thus it needs to be protected by a lock
> > > > +      * in case of race condition.
> > > > +      */
> > >
> > > Small nit, format and align this comment block. I guess
> > > could also be done while merging this patch as well.
> > >
> > > > +     spin_lock(&fixmap_lock);
> > > >       pudp = pud_set_fixmap_offset(p4dp, addr);
> > > >       do {
> > > >               pud_t old_pud = READ_ONCE(*pudp);
> > > > @@ -359,6 +365,7 @@ static void alloc_init_pud(pgd_t *pgdp, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> > > >       } while (pudp++, addr = next, addr != end);
> > > >
> > > >       pud_clear_fixmap();
> > > > +     spin_unlock(&fixmap_lock);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  static void __create_pgd_mapping(pgd_t *pgdir, phys_addr_t phys,
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> >
> > We have different fixmap slots for different page table levels, so
> > 'fixmap_lock' is not the right name.
> >
> > But we already have swapper_pgdir_lock as well, which serializes the
> > use of the pgdir level fixmap slot. And we have no spinlocks
> > protecting the other levels.
> >
> > So should we perhaps clean this up more comprehensively? Wouldn't it
> > be better to add a mutex to __create_pgd_mapping(), for instance?
>
> That does sound like a better way to do things, but the simplicity of this
> patch is quite attractive for backporting. Would you object to me queuing
> it as-is, on the premise that I'm more than happy to take consolidation
> changes on top?
>

No objections from me.