linux-kernel - Re: untagged_addr_remote() in do

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <97a0dc3d-2125-4e58-b923-e9e944975e6c@lucifer.local>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:55:01 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
        SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
Subject: Re: untagged_addr_remote() in do_madvise()

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 01:13:36PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/14/25 12:41, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> ...
> > However, MADV_HWPOISON, MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE seems fundamentally broken for tagged
> > addresses:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
> > 	if (behavior == MADV_HWPOISON || behavior == MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE)
> > 		return madvise_inject_error(behavior, start, start + len_in);
> > #endif
> >
> > ^ this is invoked before untagged_addr_remote() is called (as no mmap lock is
> > acquired) and so no attempt at untagging happens at all...!
>
> Except this call path:
>
> 	madvise_inject_error() ->
> 	get_user_pages_fast() ->
> 	gup_fast_fallback()
>
> does its own untagging:
>
>         start = untagged_addr(start) & PAGE_MASK;
>

Yeah you're right! Good spot.

> It might also have some funky behavior if start+len_in overflows. But,
> just as in the other case, it's invalid to begin with so I think
> userspace kinda gets to keep the pieces.

Right yeah.

>
> But I do 100% agree that this is non-obvious. In a perfect world, tagged
> addresses would get untagged at the user/kernel boundary in _one_ choke
> point. But the world is hard and that would make things too easy and
> then we wouldn't get paid the big bucks. ;)

Yeah agreed especially on that last bit ;)

I think it'd be good to have a comment there, I will stick on my todo to
add one.

Or Liam - if you're doing some changes here - maybe you could add? Just
something highlighting that gup_fast does the untagging?

>
> To clarify things, I don't think it'd be the worst thing to just move
> the madvise_inject_error() down and have that case acquire
> mmap_read_lock(). Sure, it's not required, but it's basically debugging
> code and I can't imagine it's avoiding the lock for performance reasons.

Yeah it's odd that, but that code is going to the lengths of using gup_fast
so I have to assume that maybe some debug user really does care about perf?
It'd need some more digging to really feel confident to use a lock there I
think.