linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/19] mm/pagewalk: Check pfnmap early for folio_walk

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: <20240816173836.GD2032816@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:38:36 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/19] mm/pagewalk: Check pfnmap early for
 folio_walk_start()

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:21:17AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:30:31AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 14.08.24 15:05, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 07:25:36PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > That is in general not what we want, and we still have some places that
> > > > > > wrongly hard-code that behavior.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In a MAP_PRIVATE mapping you might have anon pages that we can happily walk.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > vm_normal_page() / vm_normal_page_pmd() [and as commented as a TODO,
> > > > > > vm_normal_page_pud()] should be able to identify PFN maps and reject them,
> > > > > > no?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yep, I think we can also rely on special bit.
> > > 
> > > It is more than just relying on the special bit..
> > > 
> > > VM_PFNMAP/VM_MIXEDMAP should really only be used inside
> > > vm_normal_page() because thay are, effectively, support for a limited
> > > emulation of the special bit on arches that don't have them. There are
> > > a bunch of weird rules that are used to try and make that work
> > > properly that have to be followed.
> > > 
> > > On arches with the sepcial bit they should possibly never be checked
> > > since the special bit does everything you need.
> > > 
> > > Arguably any place reading those flags out side of vm_normal_page/etc
> > > is suspect.
> > 
> > IIUC, your opinion matches mine: VM_PFNMAP/VM_MIXEDMAP and pte_special()/...
> > usage should be limited to vm_normal_page/vm_normal_page_pmd/ ... of course,
> > GUP-fast is special (one of the reason for "pte_special()" and friends after
> > all).
> 
> The issue is at least GUP currently doesn't work with pfnmaps, while
> there're potentially users who wants to be able to work on both page +
> !page use cases.  Besides access_process_vm(), KVM also uses similar thing,
> and maybe more; these all seem to be valid use case of reference the vma
> flags for PFNMAP and such, so they can identify "it's pfnmap" or more
> generic issues like "permission check error on pgtable".

Why are those valid compared with calling vm_normal_page() per-page
instead?

What reason is there to not do something based only on the PFNMAP
flag?

Jason