linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 15/15] mm/gup: sanity-check with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM that anonymous pages are exclusive when (un)pinning

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]

Date:   Sat, 19 Mar 2022 11:22:28 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, 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>,
        Liang Zhang <zhangliang5@...wei.com>,
        Pedro Gomes <pedrodemargomes@...il.com>,
        Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/15] mm/gup: sanity-check with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM that
 anonymous pages are exclusive when (un)pinning

On 19.03.22 00:35, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 11:47:41AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Let's verify when (un)pinning anonymous pages that we always deal with
>> exclusive anonymous pages, which guarantees that we'll have a reliable
>> PIN, meaning that we cannot end up with the GUP pin being inconsistent
>> with he pages mapped into the page tables due to a COW triggered
>> by a write fault.
>>
>> When pinning pages, after conditionally triggering GUP unsharing of
>> possibly shared anonymous pages, we should always only see exclusive
>> anonymous pages. Note that anonymous pages that are mapped writable
>> must be marked exclusive, otherwise we'd have a BUG.
>>
>> When pinning during ordinary GUP, simply add a check after our
>> conditional GUP-triggered unsharing checks. As we know exactly how the
>> page is mapped, we know exactly in which page we have to check for
>> PageAnonExclusive().
>>
>> When pinning via GUP-fast we have to be careful, because we can race with
>> fork(): verify only after we made sure via the seqcount that we didn't
>> race with concurrent fork() that we didn't end up pinning a possibly
>> shared anonymous page.
>>
>> Similarly, when unpinning, verify that the pages are still marked as
>> exclusive: otherwise something turned the pages possibly shared, which
>> can result in random memory corruptions, which we really want to catch.
>>
>> With only the pinned pages at hand and not the actual page table entries
>> we have to be a bit careful: hugetlb pages are always mapped via a
>> single logical page table entry referencing the head page and
>> PG_anon_exclusive of the head page applies. Anon THP are a bit more
>> complicated, because we might have obtained the page reference either via
>> a PMD or a PTE -- depending on the mapping type we either have to check
>> PageAnonExclusive of the head page (PMD-mapped THP) or the tail page
>> (PTE-mapped THP) applies: as we don't know and to make our life easier,
>> check that either is set.
>>
>> Take care to not verify in case we're unpinning during GUP-fast because
>> we detected concurrent fork(): we might stumble over an anonymous page
>> that is now shared.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>  mm/gup.c         | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  mm/huge_memory.c |  3 +++
>>  mm/hugetlb.c     |  3 +++
>>  3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
>> index 92dcd92f9d67..72e39b77da10 100644
>> +++ b/mm/gup.c
>> @@ -45,6 +45,38 @@ static void hpage_pincount_sub(struct page *page, int refs)
>>  	atomic_sub(refs, compound_pincount_ptr(page));
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline void sanity_check_pinned_pages(struct page **pages,
>> +					     unsigned long npages)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
> 
> Perhaps:
> 
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM))
>    return;
> 
> So this gets compilation coverage

Makes sense, that code should compile just fine without CONFIG_DEBUG_VM.
Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb