linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mmap: Regression fix for unmapped_area{

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: <3f30fe59dd6b368db82ae91b61152bb133c4831f.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:53:48 +0000
From:   "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To:     "Liam.Howlett@...cle.com" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mmap: Regression fix for unmapped_area{_topdown}

On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 13:29 -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> * Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> [230414 13:26]:
> > * Edgecombe, Rick P <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> [230414 12:27]:
> > > On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 10:57 -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:<br>
> > > > +       tmp = mas_next(&mas, ULONG_MAX);
> > > > +       if (tmp && (tmp->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN)) {
> > > 
> > > Why also check VM_GROWSDOWN here (and VM_GROWSUP below)?
> > > vm_start/end_gap() already have checks inside.
> > 
> > An artifact of a plan that was later abandoned.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > +               if (vm_start_gap(tmp) < gap + length - 1) {
> > > > +                       low_limit = tmp->vm_end;
> > > > +                       mas_reset(&mas);
> > > > +                       goto retry;
> > > > +               }
> > > > +       } else {
> > > > +               tmp = mas_prev(&mas, 0);
> > > > +               if (tmp && (tmp->vm_flags & VM_GROWSUP) &&
> > > > +                   vm_end_gap(tmp) > gap) {
> > > > +                       low_limit = vm_end_gap(tmp); 
> > > > +                       mas_reset(&mas);
> > > > +                       goto retry; 
> > > > +               }
> > > > +       } 
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > Could it be like this?
> > 
> > Yes, I'll make this change.  Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> 
> Wait, I like how it is.
> 
> In my version, if there is a stack that is VM_GROWSDOWN there, but
> does
> not intercept the gap, then I won't check the prev.. in yours, we
> will
> never avoid checking prev.

Hmm, I see. I guess I'm thinking ahead a bit to adding the shadow stack
guard gap, but I can always add to these vm_flags checks.

But are you sure this optimization is even possible? The old
vma_compute_gap() had this comment:
/*
 * Note: in the rare case of a VM_GROWSDOWN above a VM_GROWSUP, we
 * allow two stack_guard_gaps between them here, and when choosing
 * an unmapped area; whereas when expanding we only require one.
 * That's a little inconsistent, but keeps the code here simpler.
 */

Assuming this is a real scenario, if you have VM_GROWSDOWN above and
VM_GROWSUP below, don't you need to check the gaps for above and below?
Again thinking about adding shadow stack guard pages, something like
that could be a more common scenario. Not that you need to fix my out
of tree issues, but I would probably need to adjust it to check both
directions.

I guess there is no way to embed this inside maple tree search so we
don't need to retry? (sorry if this is a dumb question, it's an opaque
box to me).