linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/shstk for 6.4

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, 12 May 2023 16:55:03 -0500
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/shstk for 6.4

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:34 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Were you really thinking of mm->count==1, or did you mean
> mm->mm_users==1?

Yeah, I meant mm_users.

And I was thinking that if it is 1, then it is stable - kind of like
how we do our optimization with file descriptors.

But you're right to worry about possibly other users incrementing the
mm_users count somehow - or just using "mmgrab()" to not increment it,
but be able to still fault on it etc.

> There's always a race there because mm->mm_users can always get bumped
> after the fork()er checks it.

Ugh. I was assuming that if they don't already have a reference to the
mm, they can't get one (becasue the '1' comes from 'current->mm', and
nobody else has that mm).

But maybe that's just not true. Looking around, we have things like

        pages->source_mm = current->mm;
        mmgrab(pages->source_mm);

that creates a ref to the mm with a grab, and then later it gets used.

So maybe the "no races can happen" is limited to *both* mm_users and
mm_count being 1. What would increment it in that case, when 'current'
is obviously busy forking?

That "both are one" might still be the common case for fork(). Hmm?

                Linus