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: <2420ca24-b475-45ba-bab9-66c11b8cf484@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 09:57:55 +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

>>> 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).
> 
> So what's the advantage of #2? This is clearly something the user didn't
> really intend or think about much. Isn't explicitly failing that mapping a
> better option than silently downgrading it to !VM_PAT?
> 
> (If I'm reading it right ...)

I think a simple mmap(MAP_PRIVATE) of /dev/mem will unconditionally fail 
with 1), while it keeps on working for 2).

Note that I think we currently set VM_PAT on each and every system if 
remap_pfn_range() will cover the whole VMA, even if pat is not actually 
enabled.

It's all a bit of a mess TBH, but I got my hands dirty enough on that.

So 1) can be rather destructive ... 2) at least somehow keeps it working.

For that reason I went with the current patch, because it's hard to tell 
which use case you will end up breaking ... :/

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb