linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2] mm: use per_vma lock for MADV

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: <0fb74598-1fee-428e-987b-c52276bfb975@bytedance.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:24:28 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>,
 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Lokesh Gidra
 <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>, Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] mm: use per_vma lock for MADV_DONTNEED

Hi Jann,

On 5/30/25 10:06 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 12:44 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
>> Certain madvise operations, especially MADV_DONTNEED, occur far more
>> frequently than other madvise options, particularly in native and Java
>> heaps for dynamic memory management.
>>
>> Currently, the mmap_lock is always held during these operations, even when
>> unnecessary. This causes lock contention and can lead to severe priority
>> inversion, where low-priority threads—such as Android's HeapTaskDaemon—
>> hold the lock and block higher-priority threads.
>>
>> This patch enables the use of per-VMA locks when the advised range lies
>> entirely within a single VMA, avoiding the need for full VMA traversal. In
>> practice, userspace heaps rarely issue MADV_DONTNEED across multiple VMAs.
>>
>> Tangquan’s testing shows that over 99.5% of memory reclaimed by Android
>> benefits from this per-VMA lock optimization. After extended runtime,
>> 217,735 madvise calls from HeapTaskDaemon used the per-VMA path, while
>> only 1,231 fell back to mmap_lock.
>>
>> To simplify handling, the implementation falls back to the standard
>> mmap_lock if userfaultfd is enabled on the VMA, avoiding the complexity of
>> userfaultfd_remove().
> 
> One important quirk of this is that it can, from what I can see, cause
> freeing of page tables (through pt_reclaim) without holding the mmap
> lock at all:
> 
> do_madvise [behavior=MADV_DONTNEED]
>    madvise_lock
>      lock_vma_under_rcu
>    madvise_do_behavior
>      madvise_single_locked_vma
>        madvise_vma_behavior
>          madvise_dontneed_free
>            madvise_dontneed_single_vma
>              zap_page_range_single_batched [.reclaim_pt = true]
>                unmap_single_vma
>                  unmap_page_range
>                    zap_p4d_range
>                      zap_pud_range
>                        zap_pmd_range
>                          zap_pte_range
>                            try_get_and_clear_pmd
>                            free_pte
> 
> This clashes with the assumption in walk_page_range_novma() that
> holding the mmap lock in write mode is sufficient to prevent
> concurrent page table freeing, so it can probably lead to page table
> UAF through the ptdump interface (see ptdump_walk_pgd()).

Maybe not? The PTE page is freed via RCU in zap_pte_range(), so in the
following case:

cpu 0				cpu 1

ptdump_walk_pgd
--> walk_pte_range
     --> pte_offset_map (hold RCU read lock)
				zap_pte_range
				--> free_pte (via RCU)
         walk_pte_range_inner
         --> ptdump_pte_entry (the PTE page is not freed at this time)

IIUC, there is no UAF issue here?

If I missed anything please let me know.

Thanks,
Qi