| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4wkY8UcyU3LnNc1a55AvjYsVjBiST=Dy07UiaH8MU5-yg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 15:37:14 +1200
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
Cc: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: userfaultfd: fix race of userfaultfd_move and swap cache
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 11:40 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 1:17 PM Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> >
> > On seeing a swap entry PTE, userfaultfd_move does a lockless swap cache
> > lookup, and try to move the found folio to the faulting vma when.
> > Currently, it relies on the PTE value check to ensure the moved folio
> > still belongs to the src swap entry, which turns out is not reliable.
> >
> > While working and reviewing the swap table series with Barry, following
> > existing race is observed and reproduced [1]:
> >
> > ( move_pages_pte is moving src_pte to dst_pte, where src_pte is a
> > swap entry PTE holding swap entry S1, and S1 isn't in the swap cache.)
> >
> > CPU1 CPU2
> > userfaultfd_move
> > move_pages_pte()
> > entry = pte_to_swp_entry(orig_src_pte);
> > // Here it got entry = S1
> > ... < Somehow interrupted> ...
> > <swapin src_pte, alloc and use folio A>
> > // folio A is just a new allocated folio
> > // and get installed into src_pte
> > <frees swap entry S1>
> > // src_pte now points to folio A, S1
> > // has swap count == 0, it can be freed
> > // by folio_swap_swap or swap
> > // allocator's reclaim.
> > <try to swap out another folio B>
> > // folio B is a folio in another VMA.
> > <put folio B to swap cache using S1 >
> > // S1 is freed, folio B could use it
> > // for swap out with no problem.
> > ...
> > folio = filemap_get_folio(S1)
> > // Got folio B here !!!
> > ... < Somehow interrupted again> ...
> > <swapin folio B and free S1>
> > // Now S1 is free to be used again.
> > <swapout src_pte & folio A using S1>
> > // Now src_pte is a swap entry pte
> > // holding S1 again.
> > folio_trylock(folio)
> > move_swap_pte
> > double_pt_lock
> > is_pte_pages_stable
> > // Check passed because src_pte == S1
> > folio_move_anon_rmap(...)
> > // Moved invalid folio B here !!!
> >
> > The race window is very short and requires multiple collisions of
> > multiple rare events, so it's very unlikely to happen, but with a
> > deliberately constructed reproducer and increased time window, it can be
> > reproduced [1].
>
> Thanks for catching and fixing this. Just to clarify a few things
> about your reproducer:
> 1. Is it necessary for the 'race' mapping to be MAP_SHARED, or
> MAP_PRIVATE will work as well?
> 2. You mentioned that the 'current dir is on a block device'. Are you
> indicating that if we are using zram for swap then it doesn't
> reproduce?
>
> >
> > It's also possible that folio (A) is swapped in, and swapped out again
> > after the filemap_get_folio lookup, in such case folio (A) may stay in
> > swap cache so it needs to be moved too. In this case we should also try
> > again so kernel won't miss a folio move.
> >
> > Fix this by checking if the folio is the valid swap cache folio after
> > acquiring the folio lock, and checking the swap cache again after
> > acquiring the src_pte lock.
> >
> > SWP_SYNCRHONIZE_IO path does make the problem more complex, but so far
> > we don't need to worry about that since folios only might get exposed to
> > swap cache in the swap out path, and it's covered in this patch too by
> > checking the swap cache again after acquiring src_pte lock.
> >
> > Fixes: adef440691ba ("userfaultfd: UFFDIO_MOVE uABI")
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAMgjq7B1K=6OOrK2OUZ0-tqCzi+EJt+2_K97TPGoSt=9+JwP7Q@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
> > Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> > ---
> > mm/userfaultfd.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > index bc473ad21202..a1564d205dfb 100644
> > --- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > +++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> > #include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
> > #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
> > #include <linux/shmem_fs.h>
> > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> I guess you mistakenly left it from your reproducer code :)
> > #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> > #include <asm/tlb.h>
> > #include "internal.h"
> > @@ -1086,6 +1087,8 @@ static int move_swap_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> > spinlock_t *dst_ptl, spinlock_t *src_ptl,
> > struct folio *src_folio)
> > {
> > + swp_entry_t entry;
> > +
> > double_pt_lock(dst_ptl, src_ptl);
> >
> > if (!is_pte_pages_stable(dst_pte, src_pte, orig_dst_pte, orig_src_pte,
> > @@ -1102,6 +1105,19 @@ static int move_swap_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> > if (src_folio) {
> > folio_move_anon_rmap(src_folio, dst_vma);
> > src_folio->index = linear_page_index(dst_vma, dst_addr);
> > + } else {
> > + /*
> > + * Check again after acquiring the src_pte lock. Or we might
> > + * miss a new loaded swap cache folio.
> > + */
> > + entry = pte_to_swp_entry(orig_src_pte);
> > + src_folio = filemap_get_folio(swap_address_space(entry),
> > + swap_cache_index(entry));
>
> Given the non-trivial overhead of filemap_get_folio(), do you think it
> will work if filemap_get_filio() was only once after locking src_ptl?
> Please correct me if my assumption about the overhead is wrong.
not quite sure as we have a folio_lock(src_folio) before move_swap_pte().
can we safely folio_move_anon_rmap + src_folio->index while not holding
folio lock?
>
> > + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(src_folio)) {
> > + double_pt_unlock(dst_ptl, src_ptl);
> > + folio_put(src_folio);
> > + return -EAGAIN;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > orig_src_pte = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, src_addr, src_pte);
> > @@ -1409,6 +1425,16 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
> > folio_lock(src_folio);
> > goto retry;
> > }
> > + /*
> > + * Check if the folio still belongs to the target swap entry after
> > + * acquiring the lock. Folio can be freed in the swap cache while
> > + * not locked.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(!folio_test_swapcache(folio) ||
> > + entry.val != folio->swap.val)) {
> > + err = -EAGAIN;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
>
> To avoid further increasing move_pages_pte() size, I recommend moving
> the entire 'pte not present' case into move_swap_pte(), and maybe
> returning some positive integer (or something more appropriate) to
> handle the retry case. And then in move_swap_pte(), as suggested
> above, you can do filemap_get_folio only once after locking ptl.
>
> I think this will fix the bug as well as improve the code's organization.
>
> > }
> > err = move_swap_pte(mm, dst_vma, dst_addr, src_addr, dst_pte, src_pte,
> > orig_dst_pte, orig_src_pte, dst_pmd, dst_pmdval,
> > --
> > 2.49.0
> >
Thanks
Barry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists