linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mm/hugetlb: support write-faults in shared mappings

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:   Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:52:38 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mm/hugetlb: support write-faults in shared
 mappings

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 09:40:11PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 10.08.22 21:29, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 11:37:13AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 09.08.22 00:08, Peter Xu wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 06:25:21PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>>>>> Relying on VM_SHARED to detect MAP_PRIVATE vs. MAP_SHARED is
> >>>>>>> unfortunately wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you're curious, take a look at f83a275dbc5c ("mm: account for
> >>>>>>> MAP_SHARED mappings using VM_MAYSHARE and not VM_SHARED in hugetlbfs")
> >>>>>>> and mmap() code.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Long story short: if the file is read-only, we only have VM_MAYSHARE but
> >>>>>>> not VM_SHARED (and consequently also not VM_MAYWRITE).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To ask in another way: if file is RO but mapped RW (mmap() will have
> >>>>>> VM_SHARED cleared but VM_MAYSHARE set), then if we check VM_MAYSHARE here
> >>>>>> won't we grant write bit errornously while we shouldn't? As the user
> >>>>>> doesn't really have write permission to the file.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thus the VM_WRITE check. :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wonder if we should just do it cleanly and introduce the maybe_mkwrite
> >>>>> semantics here as well. Then there is no need for additional VM_WRITE
> >>>>> checks and hugetlb will work just like !hugetlb.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm yeah I think the VM_MAYSHARE check is correct, since we'll need to fail
> >>>> the cases where MAYSHARE && !SHARE - we used to silently let it pass.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry I think this is a wrong statement I made..  IIUC we'll fail correctly
> >>> with/without the patch on any write to hugetlb RO regions.
> >>>
> >>> Then I just don't see a difference on checking VM_SHARED or VM_MAYSHARE
> >>> here, it's just that VM_MAYSHARE check should work too like VM_SHARED so I
> >>> don't see a problem.
> >>>
> >>> It also means I can't think of any valid case of having VM_WRITE when
> >>> reaching here, then the WARN_ON_ONCE() is okay but maybe also redundant.
> >>> Using maybe_mkwrite() seems misleading to me if FOLL_FORCE not ready for
> >>> hugetlbfs after all.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The main reason we'd have it would be to scream out lout and fail
> >> gracefully if someone would -- for example -- use it for something like
> >> FOLL_FORCE.
> > 
> > Having that WARN_ON_ONCE() is okay to me, but just to double check we're on
> > the same page: why there's concern on using FOLL_FORCE? IIUC we're talking
> > about shared mappings here, then no FOLL_FORCE possible at all?  IOW,
> > "!is_cow_mapping()" should fail in check_vma_flags() already.
> 
> This code path also covers the anon case.

But this specific warning is under the VM_MAYSHARE if clause just added in
this patch?

My understanding is any FOLL_FORCE will always constantly fail before this
patch, and it should keep failing as usual and I don't see any case it'll
be failing at the warn_on_once here.

So again, I'm fine with having the warning, but I just want to make sure
what you want to capture is what you expected..

> > 
> > The other thing is I'm wondering whether patch 2 should be postponed anyway
> > so that we can wait for a full resolution of the problem from Mike.
> 
> To make the code more robust and avoid any other such surprises I prefer
> to have this in rather earlier than later.
> 
> As the commit says "Let's add a safety net ..."

Sure, no strong opinion.  I'll leave that to Mike.  Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu