linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] mm/userfaultfd: propagate uffd-wp bit when PTE-mapping the huge zeropage

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:   Fri, 3 Mar 2023 10:12:26 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/userfaultfd: propagate uffd-wp bit when PTE-mapping
 the huge zeropage

On 02.03.23 23:29, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 06:54:23PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Currently, we'd lose the userfaultfd-wp marker when PTE-mapping a huge
>> zeropage, resulting in the next write faults in the PMD range
>> not triggering uffd-wp events.
>>
>> Various actions (partial MADV_DONTNEED, partial mremap, partial munmap,
>> partial mprotect) could trigger this. However, most importantly,
>> un-protecting a single sub-page from the userfaultfd-wp handler when
>> processing a uffd-wp event will PTE-map the shared huge zeropage and
>> lose the uffd-wp bit for the remainder of the PMD.
>>
>> Let's properly propagate the uffd-wp bit to the PMDs.
> 
> Ouch.. I thought this was reported once, probably it fell through the
> cracks.

Yes, I reported it a while ago, but our understanding back then was that 
primarily MADV_DONTNEED would trigger it (which my reproducer back then 
did), and e.g., QEMU would make sure to not have concurrent 
MADV_DONTNEED while doing background snapshots.

I realized only yesterday when retesting my patch that that a simple 
unprotect is already sufficient to mess it up.

> 
> Acked-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>

Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb