Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect

[Yu Zhao]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:15:43AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 2021, at 11:02 AM, Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > Le 12/01/2021 à 17:57, Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:47:17PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> >>> Le 12/01/2021 à 12:43, Vinayak Menon a écrit :
> >>>> Possibility of race against other PTE modifiers
> >>>> 
> >>>> 1) Fork - We have seen a case of SPF racing with fork marking PTEs RO and that
> >>>> is described and fixed here https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1062672/
> >> Right, that's exactly the kind of thing I was worried about.
> >>>> 2) mprotect - change_protection in mprotect which does the deferred flush is
> >>>> marked under vm_write_begin/vm_write_end, thus SPF bails out on faults
> >>>> on those VMAs.
> >> Sure, mprotect also changes vm_flags, so it really needs that anyway.
> >>>> 3) userfaultfd - mwriteprotect_range is not protected unlike in (2) above.
> >>>> But SPF does not take UFFD faults.
> >>>> 4) hugetlb - hugetlb_change_protection - called from mprotect and covered by
> >>>> (2) above.
> >>>> 5) Concurrent faults - SPF does not handle all faults. Only anon page faults.
> >> What happened to shared/file-backed stuff? ISTR I had that working.
> > 
> > File-backed mappings are not processed in a speculative way, there were options to manage some of them depending on the underlying file system but that's still not done.
> > 
> > Shared anonymous mapping, are also not yet handled in a speculative way (vm_ops is not null).
> > 
> >>>> Of which do_anonymous_page and do_swap_page are NONE/NON-PRESENT->PRESENT
> >>>> transitions without tlb flush. And I hope do_wp_page with RO->RW is fine as well.
> >> The tricky one is demotion, specifically write to non-write.
> >>>> I could not see a case where speculative path cannot see a PTE update done via
> >>>> a fault on another CPU.
> >> One you didn't mention is the NUMA balancing scanning crud; although I
> >> think that's fine, loosing a PTE update there is harmless. But I've not
> >> thought overly hard on it.
> > 
> > That's a good point, I need to double check on that side.
> > 
> >>> You explained it fine. Indeed SPF is handling deferred TLB invalidation by
> >>> marking the VMA through vm_write_begin/end(), as for the fork case you
> >>> mentioned. Once the PTL is held, and the VMA's seqcount is checked, the PTE
> >>> values read are valid.
> >> That should indeed work, but are we really sure we covered them all?
> >> Should we invest in better TLBI APIs to make sure we can't get this
> >> wrong?
> > 
> > That may be a good option to identify deferred TLB invalidation but I've no clue on what this API would look like.
> 
> I will send an RFC soon for per-table deferred TLB flushes tracking.
> The basic idea is to save a generation in the page-struct that tracks
> when deferred PTE change took place, and track whenever a TLB flush
> completed. In addition, other users - such as mprotect - would use
> the tlb_gather interface.
> 
> Unfortunately, due to limited space in page-struct this would only
> be possible for 64-bit (and my implementation is only for x86-64).

I don't want to discourage you but I don't think this would end up
well. PPC doesn't necessarily follow one-page-struct-per-table rule,
and I've run into problems with this before while trying to do
something similar.

I'd recommend per-vma and per-category (unmapping, clearing writable
and clearing dirty) tracking, which only rely on arch-independent data
structures, i.e., vm_area_struct and mm_struct.

> It would still require to do the copying while holding the PTL though.

IMO, this is unacceptable. Most archs don't support per-table PTL, and
even x86_64 can be configured to use per-mm PTL. What if we want to
support a larger page size in the feature?

It seems to me the only way to solve the problem with self-explanatory
code and without performance impact is to check mm_tlb_flush_pending
and the writable bit (and two other cases I mentioned above) at the
same time. Of course, this requires a lot of effort to audit the
existing uses, clean them up and properly wrap them up with new
primitives, BUG_ON all invalid cases and document the exact workflow
to prevent misuses.

I've mentioned the following before -- it only demonstrates the rough
idea.

diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 5e9ca612d7d7..af38c5ee327e 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -4403,8 +4403,11 @@ static vm_fault_t handle_pte_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
 		goto unlock;
 	}
 	if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
-		if (!pte_write(entry))
+		if (!pte_write(entry)) {
+			if (mm_tlb_flush_pending(vmf->vma->vm_mm))
+				flush_tlb_page(vmf->vma, vmf->address);
 			return do_wp_page(vmf);
+		}
 		entry = pte_mkdirty(entry);
 	}
 	entry = pte_mkyoung(entry);