linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO

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: <85e5390c-660c-ef9e-b415-00ee71bc5cbf@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:51:18 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        brauner@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
        lokeshgidra@...gle.com, hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
        axelrasmussen@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org,
        Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, zhangpeng362@...wei.com,
        bgeffon@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com, ngeoffray@...gle.com,
        jdduke@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO_REMAP uABI

On 28.09.23 19:21, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 07:05:40PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> As described as reply to v1, without fork() and KSM, the PAE bit should
>> stick around. If that's not the case, we should investigate why.
>>
>> If we ever support the post-fork case (which the comment above remap_pages()
>> excludes) we'll need good motivation why we'd want to make this
>> overly-complicated feature even more complicated.
> 
> The problem is DONTFORK is only a suggestion, but not yet restricted.  If
> someone reaches on top of some !PAE page on src it'll never gonna proceed
> and keep failing, iiuc.

Yes. It won't work if you fork() and not use DONTFORK on the src VMA. We 
should document that as a limitation.

For example, you could return an error to the user that can just call 
UFFDIO_COPY. (or to the UFFDIO_COPY from inside uffd code, but that's 
probably ugly as well).

> 
> do_wp_page() doesn't have that issue of accuracy only because one round of
> CoW will just allocate a new page with PAE set guaranteed, which is pretty
> much self-heal and unnoticed.

Yes. But it might have to copy, at which point the whole optimization of 
remap is gone :)

> 
> So it'll be great if we can have similar self-heal way for PAE.  If not, I
> think it's still fine we just always fail on !PAE src pages, but then maybe
> we should let the user know what's wrong, e.g., the user can just forgot to
> apply DONTFORK then forked.  And then the user hits error and don't know
> what happened.  Probably at least we should document it well in man pages.
> 
Yes, exactly.

> Another option can be we keep using folio_mapcount() for pte, and another
> helper (perhaps: _nr_pages_mapped==COMPOUND_MAPPED && _entire_mapcount==1)
> for thp.  But I know that's not ideal either.

As long as we only set the pte writable if PAE is set, we're good from a 
CVE perspective. The other part is just simplicity of avoiding all these 
mapcount+swapcount games where possible.

(one day folio_mapcount() might be faster -- I'm still working on that 
patch in the bigger picture of handling PTE-mapped THP better)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb