linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] introduce vm

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, 17 Mar 2023 12:08:32 -0700
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, michel@...pinasse.org,
        jglisse@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.net,
        willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, paulmck@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        will@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com,
        peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com,
        peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
        axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
        rppt@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        tatashin@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
        gurua@...gle.com, arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com,
        leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Cédric Le Goater <clg@...hat.com>,
        dimitri.sivanich@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] introduce vm_flags modifier functions

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 1:11 PM Alex Williamson
<alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 11:37:45 -0800
> Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > This patchset was originally published as a part of per-VMA locking [1] and
> > was split after suggestion that it's viable on its own and to facilitate
> > the review process. It is now a preprequisite for the next version of per-VMA
> > lock patchset, which reuses vm_flags modifier functions to lock the VMA when
> > vm_flags are being updated.
> >
> > VMA vm_flags modifications are usually done under exclusive mmap_lock
> > protection because this attrubute affects other decisions like VMA merging
> > or splitting and races should be prevented. Introduce vm_flags modifier
> > functions to enforce correct locking.
> >
> > The patchset applies cleanly over mm-unstable branch of mm tree.
>
> With this series, vfio-pci developed a bunch of warnings around not
> holding the mmap_lock write semaphore while calling
> io_remap_pfn_range() from our fault handler, vfio_pci_mmap_fault().
>
> I suspect vdpa has the same issue for their use of remap_pfn_range()
> from their fault handler, JasonW, MST, FYI.
>
> It also looks like gru_fault() would have the same issue, Dimitri.
>
> In all cases, we're preemptively setting vm_flags to what
> remap_pfn_range_notrack() uses, so I thought we were safe here as I
> specifically remember trying to avoid changing vm_flags from the
> fault handler.  But apparently that doesn't take into account
> track_pfn_remap() where VM_PAT comes into play.
>
> The reason for using remap_pfn_range() on fault in vfio-pci is that
> we're mapping device MMIO to userspace, where that MMIO can be disabled
> and we'd rather zap the mapping when that occurs so that we can sigbus
> the user rather than allow the user to trigger potentially fatal bus
> errors on the host.
>
> Peter Xu has suggested offline that a non-lazy approach to reinsert the
> mappings might be more inline with mm expectations relative to touching
> vm_flags during fault.  What's the right solution here?  Can the fault
> handling be salvaged, is proactive remapping the right approach, or is
> there something better?  Thanks,

Hi Alex,
If in your case it's safe to change vm_flags without holding exclusive
mmap_lock, maybe you can use __vm_flags_mod() the way I used it in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230126193752.297968-7-surenb@google.com,
while explaining why this should be safe?

>
> Alex
>