linux-kernel - Re: [bug report] mm/hugetlb: possible data leak with huge pmd sharing

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]

Message-ID: <9d670229-4bbf-a33b-ba80-73fc33c9bac3@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jul 2022 09:49:25 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
CC:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [bug report] mm/hugetlb: possible data leak with huge pmd sharing

On 2022/7/27 1:18, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 07/26/22 15:14, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2022/7/26 2:35, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> On 07/25/22 17:07, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>> Hi all:
>>>>     When I investigate the mm/hugetlb code, I found there's a possible data leak issue
>>>> with huge pmd sharing. Thank about the below scene:
>>>>
>>>>     1. Process A and process B shares huge pmd page.(vm_flags: VM_MAYSHARE but !VM_SHARED)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> I often get confused about the setting of VM_MAYSHARE and VM_SHARED.  When
>>> you throw in the possibility of shared and anonymous, then I struggle a bit
>>> more.  At one time did an audit to get the meaning clear in my mind, but still
>>> struggle with the meanings.
>>>
>>> Is it possible to have VM_MAYSHARE and !VM_SHARED on a hugetlb vma?  I only
>>> took a quick look and could not find a way for this to happen.  But, I> could have easily missed something.
>>
>> Thanks for your reply. It's possible to have VM_MAYSHARE and !VM_SHARED on a hugetlb vma
>> with below code snippet:
>>
>> ...
>>     fd = open("/root/huge/hugepagefile", O_CREAT | O_RDONLY, 0755);
>>     if (fd < 0) {
>>             perror("Open failed");
>>             exit(1);
>>     }
>>
>>     addr = mmap(0, 32UL*1024*1024, PROT_READ, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
>> ...
>>
>> cat /proc/<pid>/smaps:
>>
>> 400000000000-400002000000 r--s 00000000 00:2f 153780886                  /root/huge/hugepagefile
>> Size:              32768 kB
>> KernelPageSize:     2048 kB
>> MMUPageSize:        2048 kB
>> ...
>> VmFlags: rd mr me ms de ht
>>
>> /* sh: VM_SHARED, mw: VM_MAYWRITE, ms:VM_MAYSHARE */
>>
>> So vm_flags is VM_MAYSHARE but !VM_SHARED.
>>
>> But in this case, it's readonly. So the above scene won't happen. Sorry for make noise.
>>
> 
> No worries!  And, thank you for looking at the pmd sharing code.  In concept
> the functionality is simple.  However, details and edge cases make things
> complicated.
> 
> If you are interested in the pmd sharing code, more eyes on this proposal
> would be appreciated.

Yes, thanks for your hard work. ;)

> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220706202347.95150-1-mike.kravetz@oracle.com/
>