linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd operations

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: <20240129211832.qqg5bnhswy3jur2c@revolver>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:18:32 -0500
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, aarcange@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com,
        david@...hat.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com, bgeffon@...gle.com,
        willy@...radead.org, jannh@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
        ngeoffray@...gle.com, timmurray@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd
 operations

* Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> [240129 15:53]:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 12:36 PM Liam R. Howlett

..

> > > @@ -465,7 +503,7 @@ static __always_inline ssize_t mfill_atomic_hugetlb(
> > >
> > >               if (unlikely(err == -ENOENT)) {
> > >                       up_read(&ctx->map_changing_lock);
> > > -                     mmap_read_unlock(dst_mm);
> > > +                     unpin_vma(dst_mm, dst_vma, mmap_locked);
> > >                       BUG_ON(!folio);
> > >
> > >                       err = copy_folio_from_user(folio,
> > > @@ -474,17 +512,6 @@ static __always_inline ssize_t mfill_atomic_hugetlb(
> > >                               err = -EFAULT;
> > >                               goto out;
> > >                       }
> > > -                     mmap_read_lock(dst_mm);
> > > -                     down_read(&ctx->map_changing_lock);
> > > -                     /*
> > > -                      * If memory mappings are changing because of non-cooperative
> > > -                      * operation (e.g. mremap) running in parallel, bail out and
> > > -                      * request the user to retry later
> > > -                      */
> > > -                     if (atomic_read(ctx->mmap_changing)) {
> > > -                             err = -EAGAIN;
> > > -                             break;
> > > -                     }
> >
> > ... Okay, this is where things get confusing.
> >
> > How about this: Don't do this locking/boolean dance.
> >
> > Instead, do something like this:
> > In mm/memory.c, below lock_vma_under_rcu(), but something like this
> >
> > struct vm_area_struct *lock_vma(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >         unsigned long addr))    /* or some better name.. */
> > {
> >         struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> >
> >         vma = lock_vma_under_rcu(mm, addr);
> >
> >         if (vma)
> >                 return vma;
> >
> >         mmap_read_lock(mm);
> >         vma = lookup_vma(mm, addr);
> >         if (vma)
> >                 vma_start_read(vma); /* Won't fail */
> 
> Please don't assume vma_start_read() won't fail even when you have
> mmap_read_lock(). See the comment in vma_start_read() about the
> possibility of an overflow producing false negatives.

I did say something *like* this...

Thanks for catching my mistake.

> 
> >
> >         mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> >         return vma;
> > }
> >
> > Now, we know we have a vma that's vma locked if there is a vma.  The vma
> > won't go away - you have it locked.  The mmap lock is held for even
> > less time for your worse case, and the code gets easier to follow.
> >
> > Once you are done with the vma do a vma_end_read(vma).  Don't forget to
> > do this!
> >
> > Now the comment above such a function should state that the vma needs to
> > be vma_end_read(vma), or that could go undetected..  It might be worth
> > adding a unlock_vma() counterpart to vma_end_read(vma) even.
> 
> Locking VMA while holding mmap_read_lock is an interesting usage
> pattern I haven't seen yet. I think this should work quite well!

What concerns me is this working too well - for instance someone *ahem*
binder *ahem* forever and always isolating their VMA, or someone
forgetting to unlock and never noticing.

vma->vm_lock->lock being locked should be caught by lockdep on exit
though.

..

Thanks,
Liam