linux-kernel - [PATCH v3 06/10] mm/mremap: check remap conditions earlier

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: <ffa58050a544e0a8b9077f24d238cbdbba9c1858.1752232673.git.lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 12:38:20 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 06/10] mm/mremap: check remap conditions earlier

When we expand or move a VMA, this requires a number of additional checks
to be performed.

Make it really obvious under what circumstances these checks must be
performed and aggregate all the checks in one place by invoking this in
check_prep_vma().

We have to adjust the checks to account for shrink + move operations by
checking new_len <= old_len rather than new_len == old_len.

No functional change intended.

Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
---
 mm/mremap.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
index b2ee95182b36..116203766ce0 100644
--- a/mm/mremap.c
+++ b/mm/mremap.c
@@ -1345,7 +1345,7 @@ static int remap_is_valid(struct vma_remap_struct *vrm)
 	if (old_len > vma->vm_end - addr)
 		return -EFAULT;
 
-	if (new_len == old_len)
+	if (new_len <= old_len)
 		return 0;
 
 	/* Need to be careful about a growing mapping */
@@ -1445,10 +1445,6 @@ static unsigned long mremap_to(struct vma_remap_struct *vrm)
 		vrm->old_len = vrm->new_len;
 	}
 
-	err = remap_is_valid(vrm);
-	if (err)
-		return err;
-
 	/* MREMAP_DONTUNMAP expands by old_len since old_len == new_len */
 	if (vrm->flags & MREMAP_DONTUNMAP) {
 		vm_flags_t vm_flags = vrm->vma->vm_flags;
@@ -1637,10 +1633,6 @@ static unsigned long expand_vma(struct vma_remap_struct *vrm)
 {
 	unsigned long err;
 
-	err = remap_is_valid(vrm);
-	if (err)
-		return err;
-
 	/*
 	 * [addr, old_len) spans precisely to the end of the VMA, so try to
 	 * expand it in-place.
@@ -1707,6 +1699,21 @@ static unsigned long mremap_at(struct vma_remap_struct *vrm)
 	return -EINVAL;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Will this operation result in the VMA being expanded or moved and thus need
+ * to map a new portion of virtual address space?
+ */
+static bool vrm_will_map_new(struct vma_remap_struct *vrm)
+{
+	if (vrm->remap_type == MREMAP_EXPAND)
+		return true;
+
+	if (vrm_implies_new_addr(vrm))
+		return true;
+
+	return false;
+}
+
 static int check_prep_vma(struct vma_remap_struct *vrm)
 {
 	struct vm_area_struct *vma = vrm->vma;
@@ -1728,6 +1735,9 @@ static int check_prep_vma(struct vma_remap_struct *vrm)
 	if (!vrm_implies_new_addr(vrm))
 		vrm->new_addr = vrm->addr;
 
+	if (vrm_will_map_new(vrm))
+		return remap_is_valid(vrm);
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
2.50.0