| 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: <aD4KyHz_H5WPLLf4@x1.local>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 16:34:16 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: userfaultfd: fix race of userfaultfd_move and
swap cache
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 02:14:19AM +0800, Kairui Song 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].
>
> 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.
[1]
>
> Testing with a simple C program to allocate and move several GB of memory
> did not show any observable performance change.
>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> 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>
>
> ---
>
> V1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20250530201710.81365-1-ryncsn@gmail.com/
> Changes:
> - Check swap_map instead of doing a filemap lookup after acquiring the
> PTE lock to minimize critical section overhead [ Barry Song, Lokesh Gidra ]
>
> V2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20250601200108.23186-1-ryncsn@gmail.com/
> Changes:
> - Move the folio and swap check inside move_swap_pte to avoid skipping
> the check and potential overhead [ Lokesh Gidra ]
> - Add a READ_ONCE for the swap_map read to ensure it reads a up to dated
> value.
>
> mm/userfaultfd.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> index bc473ad21202..5dc05346e360 100644
> --- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -1084,8 +1084,18 @@ static int move_swap_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> pte_t orig_dst_pte, pte_t orig_src_pte,
> pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t dst_pmdval,
> spinlock_t *dst_ptl, spinlock_t *src_ptl,
> - struct folio *src_folio)
> + struct folio *src_folio,
> + struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry)
> {
> + /*
> + * 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 (src_folio && unlikely(!folio_test_swapcache(src_folio) ||
> + entry.val != src_folio->swap.val))
> + return -EAGAIN;
> +
> double_pt_lock(dst_ptl, src_ptl);
>
> if (!is_pte_pages_stable(dst_pte, src_pte, orig_dst_pte, orig_src_pte,
> @@ -1102,6 +1112,15 @@ 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 if the swap entry is cached after acquiring the src_pte
> + * lock. Or we might miss a new loaded swap cache folio.
> + */
> + if (READ_ONCE(si->swap_map[swp_offset(entry)]) & SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
Do we need data_race() for this, if this is an intentionally lockless read?
Another pure swap question: the comment seems to imply this whole thing is
protected by src_pte lock, but is it?
I'm not familiar enough with swap code, but it looks to me the folio can be
added into swap cache and set swap_map[] with SWAP_HAS_CACHE as long as the
folio is locked. It doesn't seem to be directly protected by pgtable lock.
Perhaps you meant this: since src_pte lock is held, then it'll serialize
with another thread B concurrently swap-in the swap entry, but only _later_
when thread B's do_swap_page() will check again on pte_same(), then it'll
see the src pte gone (after thread A uffdio_move happened releasing src_pte
lock), hence thread B will release the newly allocated swap cache folio?
There's another trivial detail that IIUC pte_same() must fail because
before/after the uffdio_move the swap entry will be occupied so no way to
have it reused, hence src_pte, even if re-populated again after uffdio_move
succeeded, cannot become the orig_pte (points to the swap entry in
question) that thread B read, hence pte_same() must check fail.
I'm not sure my understanding is correct, though. Maybe some richer
comment would always help.
Thanks,
> + double_pt_unlock(dst_ptl, src_ptl);
> + return -EAGAIN;
> + }
> }
>
> orig_src_pte = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, src_addr, src_pte);
> @@ -1412,7 +1431,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
> }
> 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,
> - dst_ptl, src_ptl, src_folio);
> + dst_ptl, src_ptl, src_folio, si, entry);
> }
>
> out:
> --
> 2.49.0
>
>
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists