[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59bf3c2e-d58b-41af-ab10-3e631d802229@bytedance.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 14:19:03 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>, Andrea Arcangeli
<aarcange@...hat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] userfaultfd: Fix pmd_trans_huge() recheck race
Hi Jann,
On 2024/8/13 00:42, Jann Horn wrote:
> The following race can occur:
>
> mfill_atomic other thread
> ============ ============
> <zap PMD>
> pmdp_get_lockless() [reads none pmd]
> <bail if trans_huge>
> <if none:>
> <pagefault creates transhuge zeropage>
> __pte_alloc [no-op]
> <zap PMD>
> <bail if pmd_trans_huge(*dst_pmd)>
> BUG_ON(pmd_none(*dst_pmd))
>
> I have experimentally verified this in a kernel with extra mdelay() calls;
> the BUG_ON(pmd_none(*dst_pmd)) triggers.
>
> On kernels newer than commit 0d940a9b270b ("mm/pgtable: allow
> pte_offset_map[_lock]() to fail"), this can't lead to anything worse than
> a BUG_ON(), since the page table access helpers are actually designed to
> deal with page tables concurrently disappearing; but on older kernels
> (<=6.4), I think we could probably theoretically race past the two BUG_ON()
> checks and end up treating a hugepage as a page table.
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: c1a4de99fada ("userfaultfd: mcopy_atomic|mfill_zeropage: UFFDIO_COPY|UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE preparation")
> Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
> ---
> mm/userfaultfd.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> index e54e5c8907fa..ec3750467aa5 100644
> --- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -801,7 +801,8 @@ static __always_inline ssize_t mfill_atomic(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> break;
> }
> /* If an huge pmd materialized from under us fail */
> - if (unlikely(pmd_trans_huge(*dst_pmd))) {
> + dst_pmdval = pmdp_get_lockless(dst_pmd);
> + if (unlikely(pmd_none(dst_pmdval) || pmd_trans_huge(dst_pmdval))) {
Before commit 0d940a9b270b, should we also check for
is_pmd_migration_entry(), pmd_devmap() and pmd_bad() here?
Thanks,
Qi
> err = -EFAULT;
> break;
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists