[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cb6f4acf-1eca-4d61-aa70-5edaf89d9763@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 09:30:57 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Tal Zussman <tz2294@...umbia.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] userfaultfd: prevent unregistering VMAs through a
different userfaultfd
On 07.06.25 08:40, Tal Zussman wrote:
> Currently, a VMA registered with a uffd can be unregistered through a
> different uffd associated with the same mm_struct.
>
> The existing behavior is slightly broken and may incorrectly reject
> unregistering some VMAs due to the following check:
>
> if (!vma_can_userfault(cur, cur->vm_flags, wp_async))
> goto out_unlock;
>
> where wp_async is derived from ctx, not from cur. For example, a file-backed
> VMA registered with wp_async enabled and UFFD_WP mode cannot be unregistered
> through a uffd that does not have wp_async enabled.
>
> Rather than fix this and maintain this odd behavior, make unregistration
> stricter by requiring VMAs to be unregistered through the same uffd they
> were registered with. Additionally, reorder the WARN() checks to avoid
> the aforementioned wp_async issue in the WARN()s.
>
> This change slightly modifies the ABI. It should not be backported to
> -stable.
Probably add that the expectation is that nobody really depends on this
behavior, and that no such cases are known.
>
> While at it, correct the comment for the no userfaultfd case. This seems to
> be a copy-paste artifact from the analogous userfaultfd_register() check.
>
> Fixes: 86039bd3b4e6 ("userfaultfd: add new syscall to provide memory externalization")
Fixes should come before anything else in a series (Andrew even prefers
a separate series for fixes vs. follow-up cleanups).
> Signed-off-by: Tal Zussman <tz2294@...umbia.edu>
> ---
> fs/userfaultfd.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> index 80c95c712266..10e8037f5216 100644
> --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -1466,6 +1466,16 @@ static int userfaultfd_unregister(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!!cur->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx ^
> !!(cur->vm_flags & __VM_UFFD_FLAGS));
>
> + /*
> + * Check that this VMA isn't already owned by a different
> + * userfaultfd. This provides for more strict behavior by
> + * preventing a VMA registered with a userfaultfd from being
> + * unregistered through a different userfaultfd.
> + */
Probably we can shorted to:
/*
* Prevent unregistering through another userfaultfd than used for
* registering.
*/
?
> + if (cur->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx &&
> + cur->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx != ctx)
> + goto out_unlock;
> +
> /*
> * Check not compatible vmas, not strictly required
> * here as not compatible vmas cannot have an
> @@ -1489,15 +1499,14 @@ static int userfaultfd_unregister(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> for_each_vma_range(vmi, vma, end) {
> cond_resched();
>
> - VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!vma_can_userfault(vma, vma->vm_flags, wp_async));
> -
> /*
> - * Nothing to do: this vma is already registered into this
> - * userfaultfd and with the right tracking mode too.
> + * Nothing to do: this vma is not registered with userfaultfd.
> */
Maybe
/* VMA not registered with userfaultfd. */
The "skip" below is rather clear. :)
> if (!vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx)
> goto skip;
>
> + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx != ctx);
> + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!vma_can_userfault(vma, vma->vm_flags, wp_async));
> WARN_ON(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYWRITE));
>
> if (vma->vm_start > start)
>
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists