linux-kernel - [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/selftest: uffd: Explain the write missing fault check

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20221004193400.110155-4-peterx@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue,  4 Oct 2022 15:34:00 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, peterx@...hat.com,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/selftest: uffd: Explain the write missing fault check

It's not obvious why we had a write check for each of the missing messages,
especially when it should be a locking op.  Add a rich comment for that,
and also try to explain its good side and limitations, so that if someone
hit it again for either a bug or a different glibc impl there'll be some
clue to start with.

Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
index 74babdbc02e5..297f250c1d95 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
@@ -774,7 +774,27 @@ static void uffd_handle_page_fault(struct uffd_msg *msg,
 		continue_range(uffd, msg->arg.pagefault.address, page_size);
 		stats->minor_faults++;
 	} else {
-		/* Missing page faults */
+		/*
+		 * Missing page faults.
+		 *
+		 * Here we force a write check for each of the missing mode
+		 * faults.  It's guaranteed because the only threads that
+		 * will trigger uffd faults are the locking threads, and
+		 * their first instruction to touch the missing page will
+		 * always be pthread_mutex_lock().
+		 *
+		 * Note that here we relied on an NPTL glibc impl detail to
+		 * always read the lock type at the entry of the lock op
+		 * (pthread_mutex_t.__data.__type, offset 0x10) before
+		 * doing any locking operations to guarantee that.  It's
+		 * actually not good to rely on this impl detail because
+		 * logically a pthread-compatible lib can implement the
+		 * locks without types and we can fail when linking with
+		 * them.  However since we used to find bugs with this
+		 * strict check we still keep it around.  Hopefully this
+		 * could be a good hint when it fails again.  If one day
+		 * it'll break on some other impl of glibc we'll revisit.
+		 */
 		if (msg->arg.pagefault.flags & UFFD_PAGEFAULT_FLAG_WRITE)
 			err("unexpected write fault");
 
-- 
2.37.3