linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] mm: support GUP-triggered unsharing via FAULT_FLAG

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: <0d96835d-bcf4-1192-536c-0af314405880@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Dec 2021 22:20:29 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] mm: support GUP-triggered unsharing via
 FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE (!hugetlb)

On 17.12.21 22:15, Nadav Amit wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 17, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:36:43PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>>> 5. Take a R/O pin (RDMA, VFIO, ...)
>>>> -> refcount > 1
>>>>
>>>> 6. memset(mem, 0xff, pagesize);
>>>> -> Write fault -> COW
>>>
>>> I do not believe this is actually a bug.
>>>
>>> You asked for a R/O pin, and you got one.
>>>
>>> Then somebody else modified that page, and you got exactly what you
>>> asked for - a COW event. The original R/O pin has the original page
>>> that it asked for, and can read it just fine.
>>
>> To remind all, the GUP users, like RDMA, VFIO use
>> FOLL_FORCE|FOLL_WRITE to get a 'r/o pin' specifically because of the
>> COW breaking the coherence. In these case 'r/o pin' does not mean
>> "snapshot the data", but its only a promise not to write to the pages
>> and still desires coherence with the memory map.
>>
>> Eg in RDMA we know of apps asking for a R/O pin of something in .bss
>> then filling that something with data finally doing the actual
>> DMA. Breaking COW after pin breaks those apps.
>>
>> The above #5 can occur for O_DIRECT read and in that case the
>> 'snapshot the data' is perfectly fine as racing the COW with the
>> O_DIRECT read just resolves the race toward the read() direction.
>>
>> IIRC there is some other scenario that motivated this patch?
> 
> I think that there is an assumption that once a page is COW-broken,
> it would never have another write-fault that might lead to COW
> breaking later.
> 
> AFAIK at least after userfaultfd-WP followed by
> userfaultfd-write-unprotect a page might be write-protected and
> go through do_wp_page() a second time to be COW-broken again. In
> such case, I think the FOLL_FORCE|FOLL_WRITE would not help.
> 
> I suspect (not sure) that this might even happen with mprotect()
> since I do not see all code-paths preserving whether the page
> was writable.
> 

uffd-wp and mprotect() are broken as well, yes. But the easiest example
is just swap + read fault.

Section 2 and 3 in [1], along with reproducers.

Note that I didn't mention uffd-wp and mprotect(), because these require
"manual intervention". With swap, it's not your application doing
something "special".

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/r/3ae33b08-d9ef-f846-56fb-645e3b9b4c66@redhat.com

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb