linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] Per-VMA lock support for swap and userfaults

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: <0ab6524a-6917-efe2-de69-f07fb5cdd9d2@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Aug 2023 20:04:04 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
        mhocko@...e.com, josef@...icpanda.com, jack@...e.cz,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@...ibm.com,
        michel@...pinasse.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, jglisse@...gle.com,
        vbabka@...e.cz, minchan@...gle.com, dave@...olabs.net,
        punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com, hdanton@...a.com,
        apopple@...dia.com, peterx@...hat.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
        yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
        pasha.tatashin@...een.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] Per-VMA lock support for swap and userfaults

>>>> Which ends up being
>>>>
>>>> VM_BUG_ON_MM(!rwsem_is_locked(&mm->mmap_lock), mm);
>>>>
>>>> I did not check if this is also the case on mainline, and if this series is responsible.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reporting! I'm checking it now.
>>
>> Hmm. From the code it's not obvious how lock_mm_and_find_vma() ends up
>> calling find_vma() without mmap_lock after successfully completing
>> get_mmap_lock_carefully(). lock_mm_and_find_vma+0x3f/0x270 points to
>> the first invocation of find_vma(), so this is not even the lock
>> upgrade path... I'll try to reproduce this issue and dig up more but
>> from the information I have so far this issue does not seem to be
>> related to this series.

I just checked on mainline and it does not fail there.

> 
> This is really weird. I added mmap_assert_locked(mm) calls into
> get_mmap_lock_carefully() right after we acquire mmap_lock read lock
> and one of them triggers right after successful
> mmap_read_lock_killable(). Here is my modified version of
> get_mmap_lock_carefully():
> 
> static inline bool get_mmap_lock_carefully(struct mm_struct *mm,
> struct pt_regs *regs) {
>       /* Even if this succeeds, make it clear we might have slept */
>       if (likely(mmap_read_trylock(mm))) {
>           might_sleep();
>           mmap_assert_locked(mm);
>           return true;
>       }
>       if (regs && !user_mode(regs)) {
>           unsigned long ip = instruction_pointer(regs);
>           if (!search_exception_tables(ip))
>               return false;
>       }
>       if (!mmap_read_lock_killable(mm)) {
>           mmap_assert_locked(mm);                     <---- generates a BUG
>           return true;
>       }
>       return false;
> }

Ehm, that's indeed weird.

> 
> AFAIKT conditions for mmap_read_trylock() and
> mmap_read_lock_killable() are checked correctly. Am I missing
> something?

Weirdly enough, it only triggers during that specific uffd test, right?

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb