linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm[64]/memremap: don't abuse pfn_valid() to ensure presence of linear map

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]

Date:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 06:58:08 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guillaume Tucker <gtucker@...labora.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@...iatek.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "kernelci . org bot" <bot@...nelci.org>,
        kernelci-results@...ups.io,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm[64]/memremap: don't abuse pfn_valid() to ensure
 presence of linear map

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 11:19:05PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 at 19:22, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
> >
> > The semantics of pfn_valid() is to check presence of the memory map for a
> > PFN and not whether a PFN is covered by the linear map. The memory map may
> > be present for NOMAP memory regions, but they won't be mapped in the linear
> > mapping.  Accessing such regions via __va() when they are memremap()'ed
> > will cause a crash.

...

> > diff --git a/kernel/iomem.c b/kernel/iomem.c
> > index 62c92e43aa0d..e85bed24c0a9 100644
> > --- a/kernel/iomem.c
> > +++ b/kernel/iomem.c
> > @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ static void *try_ram_remap(resource_size_t offset, size_t size,
> >         unsigned long pfn = PHYS_PFN(offset);
> >
> >         /* In the simple case just return the existing linear address */
> > -       if (pfn_valid(pfn) && !PageHighMem(pfn_to_page(pfn)) &&
> > +       if (!PageHighMem(pfn_to_page(pfn)) &&
> 
> This looks wrong to me. Calling any of the PageXxx() accessors is only
> safe if the PFN is valid, since otherwise, we don't know if the
> associated struct page exists.

Yeah, you are right, was over-enthusiastic here...
 
> >             arch_memremap_can_ram_remap(offset, size, flags))
> >                 return __va(offset);
> >
> >
> > base-commit: b2d229d4ddb17db541098b83524d901257e93845
> > --
> > 2.28.0
> >

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.