[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240626182811.fa717f7b1051a35af72cebfa@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 18:28:11 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Vlastimil
Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>, Matthew
Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Bert Karwatzki
<spasswolf@....de>, Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] Avoid MAP_FIXED gap exposure
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:15:18 -0400 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> [240626 16:59]:
> > On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:11:30 -0400 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It is now possible to walk the vma tree using the rcu read locks and is
> > > beneficial to do so to reduce lock contention. Doing so while a
> > > MAP_FIXED mapping is executing means that a reader may see a gap in the
> > > vma tree that should never logically exist - and does not when using the
> > > mmap lock in read mode. The temporal gap exists because mmap_region()
> > > calls munmap() prior to installing the new mapping.
> >
> > What are the consequences when this race hits? IOW, why do we need to
> > change anything?
> >
>
> In the (near) future, we want to walk the vma tree to produce
> /proc/<pid>/maps. Without this change we will see the temporal gap and
> expose it to the user. This series was initially sent to Suren as part
> of his patch set.
>
> We also have the new interface for an ioctl request to a vma at or above
> an address. I had highlighted that an rcu reader would be ideal, but
> proved too difficult at this time. These patches by Andrii are currently
> not using the rcu reading method as this and a per-vma locking
> clarification are needed.
>
> Since there were two users for this code, I decided to send it out
> before the other patches.
OK, thanks. We're approaching -rc6 and things are a bit sketchy so I'm
inclined to hold this off until the next cycle, unless there's urgency?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists