linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64/mm: fix incorrect file_map

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:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:15:25 +0800
From:   Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        David Hildenbrand <dhildenb@...hat.com>,
        Rafael Aquini <raquini@...hat.com>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64/mm: fix incorrect file_map_count for invalid
 pmd/pud



On 2022/11/16 23:52, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 04:38:11PM +0800, Liu Shixin wrote:
>> The page table check trigger BUG_ON() unexpectedly when split hugepage:
>>
>>  ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>  kernel BUG at mm/page_table_check.c:119!
>>  Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] SMP
>>  Dumping ftrace buffer:
>>     (ftrace buffer empty)
>>  Modules linked in:
>>  CPU: 7 PID: 210 Comm: transhuge-stres Not tainted 6.1.0-rc3+ #748
>>  Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
>>  pstate: 20000005 (nzCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
>>  pc : page_table_check_set.isra.0+0x398/0x468
>>  lr : page_table_check_set.isra.0+0x1c0/0x468
>> [...]
>>  Call trace:
>>   page_table_check_set.isra.0+0x398/0x468
>>   __page_table_check_pte_set+0x160/0x1c0
>>   __split_huge_pmd_locked+0x900/0x1648
>>   __split_huge_pmd+0x28c/0x3b8
>>   unmap_page_range+0x428/0x858
>>   unmap_single_vma+0xf4/0x1c8
>>   zap_page_range+0x2b0/0x410
>>   madvise_vma_behavior+0xc44/0xe78
>>   do_madvise+0x280/0x698
>>   __arm64_sys_madvise+0x90/0xe8
>>   invoke_syscall.constprop.0+0xdc/0x1d8
>>   do_el0_svc+0xf4/0x3f8
>>   el0_svc+0x58/0x120
>>   el0t_64_sync_handler+0xb8/0xc0
>>   el0t_64_sync+0x19c/0x1a0
>> [...]
>>
>> On arm64, pmd_present() will return true even if the pmd is invalid. So
>> in pmdp_invalidate() the file_map_count will not only decrease once but
>> also increase once. Then in set_pte_at(), the file_map_count increase
>> again, and so trigger BUG_ON() unexpectedly.
> It's not clear to me how pmd_present() relates to p?d_user_accessible_page()
> below. How are they related? (or is this a copy-paste error)?
Yes, should be pmd_leaf(). In the previous patch, pmd_present() has already replaced with pmd_leaf().
Thanks for your careful discovery. Will fix in next version.
>> Fix this problem by adding pmd_valid() in pmd_user_accessible_page().
>> Moreover, add pud_valid() for pud_user_accessible_page() too.
>>
>> Fixes: 42b2547137f5 ("arm64/mm: enable ARCH_SUPPORTS_PAGE_TABLE_CHECK")
>> Reported-by: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index edf6625ce965..56e178de75e7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -863,12 +863,12 @@ static inline bool pte_user_accessible_page(pte_t pte)
>>  
>>  static inline bool pmd_user_accessible_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>  {
>> -	return pmd_leaf(pmd) && (pmd_user(pmd) || pmd_user_exec(pmd));
>> +	return pmd_leaf(pmd) && (pmd_user(pmd) || pmd_user_exec(pmd)) && pmd_valid(pmd);
>>  }
>>  
>>  static inline bool pud_user_accessible_page(pud_t pud)
>>  {
>> -	return pud_leaf(pud) && pud_user(pud);
>> +	return pud_leaf(pud) && pud_user(pud) && pud_valid(pud);
> I think these p?d_valid() checks should be first for clarity, since the other
> bits aren't necessarily meaningful for !valid entries.
Thanks for your advice.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> .
>