linux-kernel - Re: [BUG?] X86 arch_tlbbatch_flush() seems to be lacking mm_tlb_flush

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]

Message-ID: <20221014222346.n337tvkbyr33dsdx@box.shutemov.name>
Date:   Sat, 15 Oct 2022 01:23:46 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG?] X86 arch_tlbbatch_flush() seems to be lacking
 mm_tlb_flush_nested() integration

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 08:19:42PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I haven't actually managed to reproduce this behavior, so maybe I'm
> just misunderstanding how this works; but I think the
> arch_tlbbatch_flush() path for batched TLB flushing in vmscan ought to
> have some kind of integration with mm_tlb_flush_nested().
> 
> I think that currently, the following race could happen:
> 
> [initial situation: page P is mapped into a page table of task B, but
> the page is not referenced, the PTE's A/D bits are clear]
> A: vmscan begins
> A: vmscan looks at P and P's PTEs, and concludes that P is not currently in use
> B: reads from P through the PTE, setting the Accessed bit and creating
> a TLB entry
> A: vmscan enters try_to_unmap_one()
> A: try_to_unmap_one() calls should_defer_flush(), which returns true
> A: try_to_unmap_one() removes the PTE and queues a TLB flush
> (arch_tlbbatch_add_mm())
> A: try_to_unmap_one() returns, try_to_unmap() returns to shrink_folio_list()
> B: calls munmap() on the VMA that mapped P
> B: no PTEs are removed, so no TLB flush happens
> B: munmap() returns

I think here we will serialize against anon_vma/i_mmap lock in
__do_munmap() -> unmap_region() -> free_pgtables() that A also holds.

So I believe munmap() is safe, but MADV_DONTNEED (and its flavours) is not.

> [at this point, the TLB entry still exists]
> B: calls mmap(), which reuses the same area that was just unmapped
> B: tries to access the newly created VMA, but instead the access goes
> through the stale TLB entry
> A: shrink_folio_list() calls try_to_unmap_flush(), which removes the
> stale TLB entry
> 
> The effect would be that after process B removes a mapping with
> munmap() and creates a new mapping in its place, it would still see
> data from the old mapping when trying to access the new mapping.
> 
> Am I missing something that protects against this scenario?
> 
> munmap() uses the mmu_gather infrastructure, which tries to protect
> against this kind of correctness bug with multiple racing TLB
> invalidations in tlb_finish_mmu() by blowing away the whole TLB
> whenever one TLB invalidation ends while another is still in progress
> (tested with mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm)). But mmu_gather doesn't
> seem to be aware of TLB flushes that are batched up in the
> arch_tlbbatch_flush() infrastructure, so that doesn't help here.
> 
> I think it might be necessary to add a new global counter of pending
> arch_tlbbatch_flush() flushes, and query that in
> mm_tlb_flush_nested(), or something like that.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov