| 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: <CA+EESO7axBaw7zWhG=Asuu3d5mR+QMw=cht64xdGdJGi7URhsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:08:30 -0700
From: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterx@...hat.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
syzbot <syzbot+b446dbe27035ef6bd6c2@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] userfaultfd: fix a crash when UFFDIO_MOVE handles a
THP hole
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 7:24 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 12:35 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 6:58 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > #syz test
> > >
> > > When UFFDIO_MOVE is used with UFFDIO_MOVE_MODE_ALLOW_SRC_HOLES and it
> > > encounters a non-present THP, it fails to properly recognize an unmapped
> > > hole and tries to access a non-existent folio, resulting in
> > > a crash. Add a check to skip non-present THPs.
> > >
> > Thanks Suren for promptly addressing this issue.
> >
> > > Fixes: adef440691ba ("userfaultfd: UFFDIO_MOVE uABI")
> > > Reported-by: syzbot+b446dbe27035ef6bd6c2@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68794b5c.a70a0220.693ce.0050.GAE@google.com/
> > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > > ---
> > > mm/userfaultfd.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > > index cbed91b09640..60be8080ddd0 100644
> > > --- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > > +++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> > > @@ -1818,27 +1818,35 @@ ssize_t move_pages(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, unsigned long dst_start,
> > >
> > > ptl = pmd_trans_huge_lock(src_pmd, src_vma);
> > > if (ptl) {
> > > - /* Check if we can move the pmd without splitting it. */
> > > - if (move_splits_huge_pmd(dst_addr, src_addr, src_start + len) ||
> > > - !pmd_none(dst_pmdval)) {
> > > - struct folio *folio = pmd_folio(*src_pmd);
> > > + if (pmd_present(*src_pmd) || is_pmd_migration_entry(*src_pmd)) {
> > > + /* Check if we can move the pmd without splitting it. */
> > > + if (move_splits_huge_pmd(dst_addr, src_addr, src_start + len) ||
> > > + !pmd_none(dst_pmdval)) {
> > > + if (pmd_present(*src_pmd)) {
> > > + struct folio *folio = pmd_folio(*src_pmd);
> > > +
> > > + if (!folio || (!is_huge_zero_folio(folio) &&
> > > + !PageAnonExclusive(&folio->page))) {
> > > + spin_unlock(ptl);
> > > + err = -EBUSY;
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - if (!folio || (!is_huge_zero_folio(folio) &&
> > > - !PageAnonExclusive(&folio->page))) {
> > > spin_unlock(ptl);
> > > - err = -EBUSY;
> > > - break;
> > > + split_huge_pmd(src_vma, src_pmd, src_addr);
> > > + /* The folio will be split by move_pages_pte() */
> > > + continue;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + err = move_pages_huge_pmd(mm, dst_pmd, src_pmd,
> > > + dst_pmdval, dst_vma, src_vma,
> > > + dst_addr, src_addr);
> > > + } else {
> > > + /* nothing to do to move a hole */
> > > spin_unlock(ptl);
> > > - split_huge_pmd(src_vma, src_pmd, src_addr);
> > > - /* The folio will be split by move_pages_pte() */
> > > - continue;
> > > + err = 0;
> > I think we need to act here depending on whether
> > UFFDIO_MOVE_MODE_ALLOW_SRC_HOLES is set or not.
>
> Hmm, yes, I think you are right. I thought we would bail out earlier
> if !UFFDIO_MOVE_MODE_ALLOW_SRC_HOLES but I think it's possible to get
> here if the PMD was established earlier but then unmapped.
That makes sense too. My thinking was that the
!UFFDIO_MOVE_MODE_ALLOW_SRC_HOLES check above is only when !src_pmd,
which means the src pmd-page itself isn't present. However, the case
where pmd-page is present, but the pmd entry is not; continuing
skipping the hole even when user cannot tolerate src-holes would break
the userspace logic.
>
> >
> > err = (mode & UFFDIO_MOVE_MODE_ALLOW_SRC_HOLES) ? 0 : -ENOENT;
> >
> > Also, IMO, the step_size in this case should be the minimum of
> > remaining length and HPAGE_PMD_SIZE.
>
> Ah, ok. I think it matters only for incrementing "moved" correctly
> because otherwise the functionality is the same.
>
Right. Returning an incorrect "moved" value to userspace can break the
logic, possibly causing data corruption.
> > > }
> > > -
> > > - err = move_pages_huge_pmd(mm, dst_pmd, src_pmd,
> > > - dst_pmdval, dst_vma, src_vma,
> > > - dst_addr, src_addr);
> > > step_size = HPAGE_PMD_SIZE;
> > > } else {
> > > if (pmd_none(*src_pmd)) {
> > I have a related question/doubt: why do we populate the page-table
> > hierarchy on the src side [1] (and then also at line 1857) when a hole
> > is found? IMHO, it shouldn't be needed. Depending on whether
> > UFFDIO_MOVE_MODE_ALLOW_SRC_HOLES is set or not, it should either
> > return -ENOENT, or continue past the hole. Please correct me if I'm
> > wrong.
>
> I thought about that too. I think it's done to simplify the logic.
> This way we can treat the cases when PMD was never allocated and when
> PMD was allocated, mapped and then unmapped the same way.
>
Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
> >
> > [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.16/source/mm/userfaultfd.c#L1797
> >
> > >
> > > base-commit: 01da54f10fddf3b01c5a3b80f6b16bbad390c302
> > > --
> > > 2.50.1.552.g942d659e1b-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists