[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22aee5ea-dd6b-ac2b-0b28-a25ee6602b48@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 21:45:34 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joe Mario <jmario@...hat.com>,
Barry Marson <bmarson@...hat.com>,
Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mmap: Map MAP_STACK to VM_STACK
On 4/18/23 21:36, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2023, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 4/18/23 17:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:02:30 -0400 Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the flags of mmap(2) is MAP_STACK to request a memory segment
>>>> suitable for a process or thread stack. The kernel currently ignores
>>>> this flags. Glibc uses MAP_STACK when mmapping a thread stack. However,
>>>> selinux has an execstack check in selinux_file_mprotect() which disallows
>>>> a stack VMA to be made executable.
>>>>
>>>> Since MAP_STACK is a noop, it is possible for a stack VMA to be merged
>>>> with an adjacent anonymous VMA. With that merging, using mprotect(2)
>>>> to change a part of the merged anonymous VMA to make it executable may
>>>> fail. This can lead to sporadic failure of applications that need to
>>>> make those changes.
>>> "Sporadic failure of applications" sounds quite serious. Can you
>>> provide more details?
>> The problem boils down to the fact that it is possible for user code to mmap a
>> region of memory and then for the kernel to merge the VMA for that memory with
>> the VMA for one of the application's thread stacks. This is causing random
>> SEGVs with one of our large customer application.
>>
>> At a high level, this is what's happening:
>>
>> 1) App runs creating lots of threads.
>> 2) It mmap's 256K pages of anonymous memory.
>> 3) It writes executable code to that memory.
>> 4) It calls mprotect() with PROT_EXEC on that memory so
>> it can subsequently execute the code.
>>
>> The above mprotect() will fail if the mmap'd region's VMA gets merged with the
>> VMA for one of the thread stacks. That's because the default RHEL SELinux
>> policy is to not allow executable stacks.
> Then wouldn't the bug be at the SELinux end? VMAs may have been merged
> already, but the mprotect() with PROT_EXEC of the good non-stack range
> will then split that area off from the stack again - maybe the SELinux
> check does not understand that must happen?
The SELinux check is done per VMA, not a region within a VMA. After VMA
merging, SELinux is probably not able to determine which part of a VMA
is a stack unless we keep that information somewhere and provide an API
for SELinux to query. That can be quite a lot of work. So the easiest
way to prevent this problem is to avoid merging a stack VMA with a
regular anonymous VMA.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists