| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <88a70fa7-b1c8-6f5c-1018-df673949785c@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:40:29 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Guohanjun <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4 3/4] arm64: mm: add support for page table check
On 4/18/22 21:17, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>
>
> 在 2022/4/18 17:28, Anshuman Khandual 写道:
>> On 4/18/22 09:14, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>>> From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
>>>
> [...]
>>> #endif
>>
>> Ran this series on arm64 platform after enabling
>>
>> - CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_CHECK
>> - CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_CHECK_ENFORCED (avoiding kernel command line option)
>>
>> After some time, the following error came up
>>
>> [ 23.266013] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [ 23.266807] kernel BUG at mm/page_table_check.c:90!
>> [ 23.267609] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
>> [ 23.268503] Modules linked in:
>> [ 23.269012] CPU: 1 PID: 30 Comm: khugepaged Not tainted 5.18.0-rc3-00004-g60aa8e363a91 #2
>> [ 23.270383] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
>> [ 23.271210] pstate: 40400005 (nZcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
>> [ 23.272445] pc : page_table_check_clear.isra.6+0x114/0x148
>> [ 23.273429] lr : page_table_check_clear.isra.6+0x64/0x148
>> [ 23.274395] sp : ffff80000afb3ca0
>> [ 23.274994] x29: ffff80000afb3ca0 x28: fffffc00022558e8 x27: ffff80000a27f628
>> [ 23.276260] x26: ffff800009f9f2b0 x25: ffff00008a8d5000 x24: ffff800009f09fa0
>> [ 23.277527] x23: 0000ffff89e00000 x22: ffff800009f09fb8 x21: ffff000089414cc0
>> [ 23.278798] x20: 0000000000000200 x19: fffffc00022a0000 x18: 0000000000000001
>> [ 23.280066] x17: 0000000000000001 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: 0000000000000003
>> [ 23.281331] x14: 0000000000000068 x13: 00000000000000c0 x12: 0000000000000010
>> [ 23.282602] x11: fffffc0002320008 x10: fffffc0002320000 x9 : ffff800009fa1000
>> [ 23.283868] x8 : 00000000ffffffff x7 : 0000000000000001 x6 : ffff800009fa1f08
>> [ 23.285135] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000000
>> [ 23.286406] x2 : 00000000ffffffff x1 : ffff000080f2800c x0 : ffff000080f28000
>> [ 23.287673] Call trace:
>> [ 23.288123] page_table_check_clear.isra.6+0x114/0x148
>> [ 23.289043] __page_table_check_pmd_clear+0x3c/0x50
>> [ 23.289918] pmdp_collapse_flush+0x114/0x370
>> [ 23.290692] khugepaged+0x1170/0x19e0
>> [ 23.291356] kthread+0x110/0x120
>> [ 23.291945] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>> [ 23.292596] Code: 91001041 b8e80024 51000482 36fffd62 (d4210000)
>> [ 23.293678] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>> [ 23.294511] note: khugepaged[30] exited with preempt_count 2
>>
>> Looking into file mm/page_table_check.c where this problem occured.
>>
>> /*
>> * An enty is removed from the page table, decrement the counters for that page
>> * verify that it is of correct type and counters do not become negative.
>> */
>> static void page_table_check_clear(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>> unsigned long pfn, unsigned long pgcnt)
>> {
>> struct page_ext *page_ext;
>> struct page *page;
>> unsigned long i;
>> bool anon;
>>
>> if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
>> return;
>>
>> page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>> page_ext = lookup_page_ext(page);
>> anon = PageAnon(page);
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < pgcnt; i++) {
>> struct page_table_check *ptc = get_page_table_check(page_ext);
>>
>> if (anon) {
>> BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ptc->file_map_count));
>> BUG_ON(atomic_dec_return(&ptc->anon_map_count) < 0);
>> } else {
>> BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ptc->anon_map_count));
>> Triggered here ====>> BUG_ON(atomic_dec_return(&ptc->file_map_count) < 0);
>> }
>> page_ext = page_ext_next(page_ext);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Could you explain what was expected during pmdp_collapse_flush() which when
>> failed, triggered this BUG_ON() ? This counter seems to be page table check
>> specific, could it just go wrong ? I have not looked into the details about
>> page table check mechanism.
>>
>> - Anshuman
>> .
>
> Hi Anshuman:
>
> Thanks for your job.
>
> Let me briefly explain the principle of page table check(PTC).
>
> PTC introduces the following struct for page mapping type count:
> struct page_table_check {
> atomic_t anon_map_count;
> atomic_t file_map_count;
> };
> This structure can be obtained by "lookup_page_ext(page)"
Right.
>
> When page table entries are set(pud/pmd/pte), page_table_check_set() is called to increase the page mapping count, Also check for errors (eg:if a page is used for anonymous mapping, then the page cannot be used for file mapping at the same time).
>
> When page table entries are clear(pud/pmd/pte), page_table_check_clear() is called to decrease the page mapping count, Also check for errors.
>
> The error check rules are described in the following documents: Documentation/vm/page_table_check.rst
Snippet from that document.
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
| Current Mapping | New mapping | Permissions | Rule |
+===================+===================+===================+==================+
| Anonymous | Anonymous | Read | Allow |
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
| Anonymous | Anonymous | Read / Write | Prohibit |
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
| Anonymous | Named | Any | Prohibit |
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
| Named | Anonymous | Any | Prohibit |
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
| Named | Named | Any | Allow |
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
Does 'Named' refer to file mapping ? Also what does 'Prohibit' imply here ? The
check will call out a BUG_ON() in such cases ?
page_table_check_clear()
{
if (anon) {
BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ptc->file_map_count));
BUG_ON(atomic_dec_return(&ptc->anon_map_count) < 0);
} else {
BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ptc->anon_map_count));
BUG_ON(atomic_dec_return(&ptc->file_map_count) < 0);
}
}
So in the clear path, there are two checks
- If the current mapping is Anon, file_map_count cannot be positive and other way
- Decrement the applicable counter ensuring that it does not turn negative
page_table_check_set()
{
if (anon) {
BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ptc->file_map_count));
BUG_ON(atomic_inc_return(&ptc->anon_map_count) > 1 && rw);
} else {
BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ptc->anon_map_count));
BUG_ON(atomic_inc_return(&ptc->file_map_count) < 0);
}
}
So in the set path, there are two checks
- If the current mapping is anon, file_map_count cannot be positive and other way
- Anon mapping cannot be RW if the page has been mapped more than once
- But then why check for negative values for file_map_count after increment ?
Is there any other checks, which this test ensures, that I might be missing ?
>
> The setting and clearing of page table entries are symmetrical.
This assumption should be true for any user accessible mapping, for this test to work ?
Also why PUD_PAGE_SIZE/PMD_PAGE_SIZE are being used here instead of directly using
generic macros such as PUD_SIZE/PMD_SIZE ? Is there a specific reason ?
>
> Here __page_table_check_pmd_clear() trigger BUGON which indicates that the pmd entry file mapping count has become negative.
>
> I guess if PTC didn't detect this exception, would there have been any problems?
I am looking into this, not sure for now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists