[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181206111058.GD23697@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 11:10:58 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, nadav.amit@...il.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
"Dock, Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, kristen@...ux.intel.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vmalloc: New flag for flush before releasing pages
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:29:03AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 00:16, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:41 AM Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 12:09:49PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:02 PM Edgecombe, Rick P
> > > > <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 16:03 +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 05:43:11PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 2018, at 4:07 PM, Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since vfree will lazily flush the TLB, but not lazily free the underlying
> > > > > > > > pages,
> > > > > > > > it often leaves stale TLB entries to freed pages that could get re-used.
> > > > > > > > This is
> > > > > > > > undesirable for cases where the memory being freed has special permissions
> > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > as executable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I am trying to finish my patch-set for preventing transient W+X mappings
> > > > > > > from taking space, by handling kprobes & ftrace that I missed (thanks again
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > pointing it out).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But all of the sudden, I don’t understand why we have the problem that this
> > > > > > > (your) patch-set deals with at all. We already change the mappings to make
> > > > > > > the memory wrAcked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
> itable before freeing the memory, so why can’t we make it
> > > > > > > non-executable at the same time? Actually, why do we make the module memory,
> > > > > > > including its data executable before freeing it???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, this is really confusing, but I have a suspicion it's a combination
> > > > > > of the various different configurations and hysterical raisins. We can't
> > > > > > rely on module_alloc() allocating from the vmalloc area (see nios2) nor
> > > > > > can we rely on disable_ro_nx() being available at build time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we *could* rely on module allocations always using vmalloc(), then
> > > > > > we could pass in Rick's new flag and drop disable_ro_nx() altogether
> > > > > > afaict -- who cares about the memory attributes of a mapping that's about
> > > > > > to disappear anyway?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it just nios2 that does something different?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yea it is really intertwined. I think for x86, set_memory_nx everywhere would
> > > > > solve it as well, in fact that was what I first thought the solution should be
> > > > > until this was suggested. It's interesting that from the other thread Masami
> > > > > Hiramatsu referenced, set_memory_nx was suggested last year and would have
> > > > > inadvertently blocked this on x86. But, on the other architectures I have since
> > > > > learned it is a bit different.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like actually most arch's don't re-define set_memory_*, and so all of
> > > > > the frob_* functions are actually just noops. In which case allocating RWX is
> > > > > needed to make it work at all, because that is what the allocation is going to
> > > > > stay at. So in these archs, set_memory_nx won't solve it because it will do
> > > > > nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > On x86 I think you cannot get rid of disable_ro_nx fully because there is the
> > > > > changing of the permissions on the directmap as well. You don't want some other
> > > > > caller getting a page that was left RO when freed and then trying to write to
> > > > > it, if I understand this.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Exactly.
> > >
> > > Of course, I forgot about the linear mapping. On arm64, we've just queued
> > > support for reflecting changes to read-only permissions in the linear map
> > > [1]. So, whilst the linear map is always non-executable, we will need to
> > > make parts of it writable again when freeing the module.
> > >
> > > > After slightly more thought, I suggest renaming VM_IMMEDIATE_UNMAP to
> > > > VM_MAY_ADJUST_PERMS or similar. It would have the semantics you want,
> > > > but it would also call some arch hooks to put back the direct map
> > > > permissions before the flush. Does that seem reasonable? It would
> > > > need to be hooked up that implement set_memory_ro(), but that should
> > > > be quite easy. If nothing else, it could fall back to set_memory_ro()
> > > > in the absence of a better implementation.
> > >
> > > You mean set_memory_rw() here, right? Although, eliding the TLB invalidation
> > > would open up a window where the vmap mapping is executable and the linear
> > > mapping is writable, which is a bit rubbish.
> > >
> >
> > Right, and Rick pointed out the same issue. Instead, we should set
> > the direct map not-present or its ARM equivalent, then do the flush,
> > then make it RW. I assume this also works on arm and arm64, although
> > I don't know for sure. On x86, the CPU won't cache not-present PTEs.
>
> If we are going to unmap the linear alias, why not do it at vmalloc()
> time rather than vfree() time?
Right, that should be pretty straightforward. We're basically saying that
RO in the vmalloc area implies PROT_NONE in the linear map, so we could
just do this in our set_memory_ro() function.
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.
