linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: avoid corrupting page->mapping in hugetlb_mcopy_atomic

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:   Fri, 15 Jul 2022 11:56:40 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: avoid corrupting page->mapping in
 hugetlb_mcopy_atomic_pte

On 2022/7/14 23:52, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 05:59:53PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2022/7/14 1:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 21:05:42 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In MCOPY_ATOMIC_CONTINUE case with a non-shared VMA, pages in the page
>>>> cache are installed in the ptes. But hugepage_add_new_anon_rmap is called
>>>> for them mistakenly because they're not vm_shared. This will corrupt the
>>>> page->mapping used by page cache code.
>>>
>>> Well that sounds bad.  And theories on why this has gone unnoticed for
>>> over a year?  I assume this doesn't have coverage in our selftests?
>>
>> As discussed in another thread, when minor fault handling is proposed, only
>> VM_SHARED vma is expected to be supported. And the test case is also missing.
> 
> Yes, after this patch applied it'll be great to have the test case covering
> private mappings too.
> 
> It's just that it'll be a bit more than setting test_uffdio_minor=1 for
> "hugetlb" test.  In hugetlb_allocate_area() we'll need to setup the alias
> too for !shared case, it'll be a bit challenging since currently we're
> using anonymous hugetlb mappings for private tests, and I'm not sure
> whether we'll need the hugetlb path back just like what we have with
> "hugetlb_shared" tests.

I'm afraid not. When minor fault handling is proposed, only VM_SHARED vma is
expected to be supported. It seems it's hard to image how one might benefit
from using it with a private mapping. But I'm not sure as I'm still a layman
in userfaultfd now. Any further suggestions?

> 

Thanks!