[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181128095734.GA23467@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:57:35 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, 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 Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 05:21:08PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > 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?
If __purge_vmap_area_lazy() returns false, then it hasn't freed the memory,
so we only invalidate the TLB if 'flush' is true in that case. If
__purge_vmap_area_lazy() returns true instead, then it takes care of the TLB
invalidation before the freeing.
Will
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.
