linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] x86/mm/pat: fix VM

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: <922c5f99-1194-4118-9fe2-09b4f4a8cf04@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 09:48:33 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, Wupeng Ma <mawupeng1@...wei.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Andy Lutomirski
 <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] x86/mm/pat: fix VM_PAT handling in COW mappings

On 26.03.24 09:33, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12.03.24 20:22, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 07:11:18PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> PAT handling won't do the right thing in COW mappings: the first PTE
>>>> (or, in fact, all PTEs) can be replaced during write faults to point at
>>>> anon folios. Reliably recovering the correct PFN and cachemode using
>>>> follow_phys() from PTEs will not work in COW mappings.
>>>
>>> I guess the first question is: Why do we want to support COW mappings
>>> of VM_PAT areas?  What breaks if we just disallow it?
>>
>> Well, that was my first approach. Then I decided to be less radical (IOW
>> make my life easier by breaking less user space) and "fix it" with
>> minimal effort.
>>
>> Chances of breaking some weird user space is possible, although I believe
>> for most such mappings MAP_PRIVATE doesn't make too much sense sense.
>>
>> Nasty COW support for VM_PFNMAP mappings dates back forever. So does PAT
>> support.
>>
>> I can try finding digging through some possible user space users
>> tomorrow.
> 
> I'd much prefer restricting VM_PAT areas than expanding support. Could we

Note that we're not expanding support, we're fixing what used to be
possible before but mostly broke silently.

But I agree that we should rather remove these corner cases instead of fixing
them.

> try the trivial restriction approach first, and only go with your original
> patch if that fails?

Which version would you prefer, I had two alternatives (excluding comment
changes, white-space expected to be broken).


1) Disallow when we would have set VM_PAT on is_cow_mapping()

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
index 0d72183b5dd0..6979912b1a5d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
@@ -994,6 +994,9 @@ int track_pfn_remap(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pgprot_t *prot,
                                 && size == (vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start))) {
                 int ret;
  
+               if (is_cow_mapping(vma->vm_flags))
+                       return -EINVAL;
+
                 ret = reserve_pfn_range(paddr, size, prot, 0);
                 if (ret == 0 && vma)
                         vm_flags_set(vma, VM_PAT);


2) Fallback to !VM_PAT

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
index 0d72183b5dd0..8e97156c9be8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
@@ -990,8 +990,8 @@ int track_pfn_remap(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pgprot_t *prot,
         enum page_cache_mode pcm;
  
         /* reserve the whole chunk starting from paddr */
-       if (!vma || (addr == vma->vm_start
-                               && size == (vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start))) {
+       if (!vma || (!is_cow_mapping(vma->vm_flags) && addr == vma->vm_start &&
+                    size == (vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start))) {
                 int ret;
  
                 ret = reserve_pfn_range(paddr, size, prot, 0);



Personally, I'd go for 2).

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb