[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <449E6648-5599-476D-8136-EE570101F930@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 17:21:08 -0800
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
rostedt@...dmis.org,
mingo@...hat.com,
ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net,
jeyu@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
jannh@...gle.com,
kristen@...ux.intel.com,
dave.hansen@...el.com,
deneen.t.dock@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Don’t leave executable TLB entries to freed pages
> On Nov 27, 2018, at 5:06 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 4:07 PM, Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes when memory is freed via the module subsystem, an executable
>> permissioned TLB entry can remain to a freed page. If the page is re-used to
>> back an address that will receive data from userspace, it can result in user
>> data being mapped as executable in the kernel. The root of this behavior is
>> vfree lazily flushing the TLB, but not lazily freeing the underlying pages.
>>
>> There are sort of three categories of this which show up across modules, bpf,
>> kprobes and ftrace:
>>
>> 1. When executable memory is touched and then immediatly freed
>>
>> This shows up in a couple error conditions in the module loader and BPF JIT
>> compiler.
>
> Interesting!
>
> Note that this may cause conflict with "x86: avoid W^X being broken during
> modules loading”, which I recently submitted.
I actually have not looked on the vmalloc() code too much recent, but it
seems … strange:
void vm_unmap_aliases(void)
{
...
mutex_lock(&vmap_purge_lock);
purge_fragmented_blocks_allcpus();
if (!__purge_vmap_area_lazy(start, end) && flush)
flush_tlb_kernel_range(start, end);
mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock);
}
Since __purge_vmap_area_lazy() releases the memory, it seems there is a time
window between the release of the region and the TLB flush, in which the
area can be allocated for another purpose. This can result in a
(theoretical) correctness issue. No?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
