linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 1/8] mm/memfd: Introduce userspace inaccessible memfd

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: <Y1LOe4JvnTbFNs4u@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:53:15 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Gupta, Pankaj" <pankaj.gupta@....com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
        "Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
        Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>, luto@...nel.org,
        jun.nakajima@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        david@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com, ddutile@...hat.com,
        dhildenb@...hat.com, Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, mhocko@...e.com,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, wei.w.wang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/8] mm/memfd: Introduce userspace inaccessible memfd

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022, Chao Peng wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 04:20:58PM +0530, Vishal Annapurve wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:02 PM Kirill A . Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 07:12:10PM +0530, Vishal Annapurve wrote:
> > > > I think moving this notifier_invalidate before fallocate may not solve
> > > > the problem completely. Is it possible that between invalidate and
> > > > fallocate, KVM tries to handle the page fault for the guest VM from
> > > > another vcpu and uses the pages to be freed to back gpa ranges? Should
> > > > hole punching here also update mem_attr first to say that KVM should
> > > > consider the corresponding gpa ranges to be no more backed by
> > > > inaccessible memfd?
> > >
> > > We rely on external synchronization to prevent this. See code around
> > > mmu_invalidate_retry_hva().
> > >
> > > --
> > >   Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
> > 
> > IIUC, mmu_invalidate_retry_hva/gfn ensures that page faults on gfn
> > ranges that are being invalidated are retried till invalidation is
> > complete. In this case, is it possible that KVM tries to serve the
> > page fault after inaccessible_notifier_invalidate is complete but
> > before fallocate could punch hole into the files?

It's not just the page fault edge case.  In the more straightforward scenario
where the memory is already mapped into the guest, freeing pages back to the kernel
before they are removed from the guest will lead to use-after-free.

> > e.g.
> > inaccessible_notifier_invalidate(...)
> > ... (system event preempting this control flow, giving a window for
> > the guest to retry accessing the gfn range which was invalidated)
> > fallocate(.., PUNCH_HOLE..)
> 
> Looks this is something can happen.
> And sounds to me the solution needs
> just follow the mmu_notifier's way of using a invalidate_start/end pair.
> 
>   invalidate_start()  --> kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress++;
>                           zap KVM page table entries;
>   fallocate()
>   invalidate_end()  --> kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress--;
> 
> Then during invalidate_start/end time window mmu_invalidate_retry_gfn
> checks 'mmu_invalidate_in_progress' and prevent repopulating the same
> page in KVM page table.

Yes, if it's not safe to invalidate after making the change (fallocate()), then
the change needs to be bookended by a start+end pair.  The mmu_notifier's unpaired
invalidate() hook works by zapping the primary MMU's PTEs before invalidate(), but
frees the underlying physical page _after_ invalidate().

And the only reason the unpaired invalidate() exists is because there are secondary
MMUs that reuse the primary MMU's page tables, e.g. shared virtual addressing, in
which case bookending doesn't work because the secondary MMU can't remove PTEs, it
can only flush its TLBs.

For this case, the whole point is to not create PTEs in the primary MMU, so there
should never be a use case that _needs_ an unpaired invalidate().

TL;DR: a start+end pair is likely the simplest solution.