linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/mmap: Fix uprobe anon page be overwritten when expanding vma during mremap

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: <32edded8-bf8f-4bb8-864e-46b11db8db31@lucifer.local>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 12:44:11 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@...weicloud.com>,
        mhiramat@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, jannh@...gle.com,
        pfalcato@...e.de, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        pulehui@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/mmap: Fix uprobe anon page be overwritten when
 expanding vma during mremap

On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 12:42:38PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 08:46:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 26.05.25 17:48, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Hi Lehui,
> > >
> > > As I said, I don't understand mm/, so can't comment, but...
> > >
> > > On 05/26, Pu Lehui wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To make things simpler, perhaps we could try post-processing, that is:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
> > > > index 83e359754961..46a757fd26dc 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/mremap.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/mremap.c
> > > > @@ -240,6 +240,11 @@ static int move_ptes(struct pagetable_move_control
> > > > *pmc,
> > > >                  if (pte_none(ptep_get(old_pte)))
> > > >                          continue;
> > > >
> > > > +               /* skip move pte when expanded range has uprobe */
> > > > +               if (unlikely(pte_present(*new_pte) &&
> > > > +                            vma_has_uprobes(pmc->new, new_addr, new_addr +
> > > > PAGE_SIZE)))
>
> This feels like a horrible hack, note that we also move page tables at higher
> page table levels _anyway_ so this would be broken by that (unless uprobes split
> huge mappings).
>
> If it's uprobe code that's putting the new PTE in place, then this is
> just... yeah. I'm with David's suggestion of just disallowing this scenario, I
> really dislike the idea that we're ok with an invalid condition being ok, only
> to cover off this one specific case.

CORRECTION: Oleg's suggestion :P Sorry Oleg, misread...

>
>
> > > > +                       continue;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > I was thinking about
> > >
> > > 	WARN_ON(!pte_none(*new_pte))
> > >
> > > at the start of the main loop.
> > >
> > > Obviously not to fix the problem, but rather to make it more explicit.
> >
> > Yeah, WARN_ON_ONCE().
> >
> > We really should fix the code to not install uprobes into the area we are
> > moving.
> >
> > Likely, the correct fix will be to pass the range as well to uprobe_mmap(),
> > and passing that range to build_probe_list().
> >
> > Only when growing using mremap(), we want to call it on the extended range
> > only.
>
> We might be able to implement a simpler version of the proposed patch though
> which might avoid us needing to do something like this.
>
> Having a look...
>
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > David / dhildenb
> >
>