linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] mm: always lock new vma before inserting into vma tree

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:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:26:43 -0700
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jannh@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org,
        david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
        vbabka@...e.cz, michel@...pinasse.org, jglisse@...gle.com,
        mhocko@...e.com, hannes@...xchg.org, dave@...olabs.net,
        hughd@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] mm: always lock new vma before inserting into vma tree

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 11:15 AM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> [230803 14:02]:
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 10:27, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > While it's not strictly necessary to lock a newly created vma before
> > > adding it into the vma tree (as long as no further changes are performed
> > > to it), it seems like a good policy to lock it and prevent accidental
> > > changes after it becomes visible to the page faults. Lock the vma before
> > > adding it into the vma tree.
> >
> > So my main reaction here is that I started to wonder about the vma allocation.
> >
> > Why doesn't vma_init() do something like
> >
> >         mmap_assert_write_locked(mm);
> >         vma->vm_lock_seq = mm->mm_lock_seq;
> >
> > and instead we seem to expect vma_lock_alloc() to do this (and do it
> > very badly indeed).
> >
> > Strange.
> >
> > Anyway, this observation was just a reaction to that "not strictly
> > necessary to lock a newly created vma" part of the commentary. I feel
> > like we could/should just make sure that all newly created vma's are
> > always simply created write-locked.
> >
>
> I thought the same thing initially, but Suren pointed out that it's not
> necessary to hold the vma lock to allocate a vma object.  And it seems
> there is at least one user (arch/ia64/mm/init.c) which does allocate
> outside the lock during ia64_init_addr_space(), which is fine but I'm
> not sure it gains much to do it this way - the insert needs to take the
> lock anyways and it is hardly going to be contended.

Yeah, I remember discussing that. At the time of VMA creation the
mmap_lock might not be write-locked, so mmap_assert_write_locked()
would trigger and mm->mm_lock_seq is not stable. Maybe we can
necessitate holding mmap_lock at the time of VMA creation but that
sounds like an unnecessary restriction. IIRC some drivers also create
vm_are_structs without holding mmap_lock... I'll double-check.

>
> Anywhere else besides an address space setup would probably introduce a
> race.
>
> Thanks,
> Liam
>