From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Duane Griffin <duaneg@dghda.com>,
linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
stable@kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.23 regression: accessing invalid mmap'ed memory from gdb causes unkillable spinning
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:47:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071101154705.GA745@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0711010809171.3342@woody.linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:14:47AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:08:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > We made much bigger changes to ptrace support when we disallowed writing
> > > to read-only shared memory areas (we used to do the magic per-page COW
> > > thing).
> >
> > Really? No, we still do that magic COW thing which creates anonymous
> > pages in MAP_SHARED vmas, don't we?
>
> No, we don't. I'm pretty sure. It didn't work with the VM cleanups, since
> the MAP_SHARED vma's won't be on the anonymous list any more, and cannot
> be swapped out.
>
> So now, if you try to write to a read-only shared page through ptrace,
> you'll get "Unable to access".
No, it COWs it (the file is RW).
I believe do_wp_page will still attach an anon_vma to the vma, which
will make the pte discoverable via rmap.
> Of course, I didn't really look closely, so maybe I just don't remember
> things right..
>
> > > access_vm_pages() (things like core-dumping comes to mind - although I
> > > think we don't dump pure file mappings at all, do we?) it would certainly
> > > be good to run any such tests on the current -git tree...
> >
> > We do for MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, by the looks.
>
> Well, as we should. There's no way for a debugger to get those pages back.
> So that all looks sane.
>
> > - vm_flags |= VM_SHARED | VM_MAYSHARE;
> > - if (!(file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
> > - vm_flags &= ~(VM_MAYWRITE | VM_SHARED);
> > + vm_flags |= VM_MAYSHARE;
> > + if (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)
> > + vm_flags |= VM_SHARED;
> > + if (!(vm_flags & VM_WRITE))
> > + vm_flags &= ~VM_MAYWRITE;
>
> This looks totally bogus. What was the intent of this patch?
>
> The VM_MAYWRITE flag is *not* supposed to track the VM_WRITE flag: that
> would defeat the whole purpose of it! The whole point of that flag is to
> say whether mprotect() could turn it into a VM_WRITE mapping, and it
> depends on the file mode, not VM_WRITE!
Yeah of course that won't work, stupid...
The intent is to stop get_user_pages from proceeding with a write fault (and
subsequent COW) to readonly shared mappings, when force is set. I think it
can be done simply via get_user_pages(), which is what I should have done
to begin with.
Untested patch follows
---
Index: linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memory.c
+++ linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
@@ -1031,7 +1031,9 @@ int get_user_pages(struct task_struct *t
}
if (!vma || (vma->vm_flags & (VM_IO | VM_PFNMAP))
- || !(vm_flags & vma->vm_flags))
+ || !(vm_flags & vma->vm_flags)
+ || (write && ((vma->vm_flags &
+ (VM_SHARED|VM_MAYSHARE)) == VM_MAYSHARE)))
return i ? : -EFAULT;
if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)) {
@@ -1563,13 +1565,11 @@ static int do_wp_page(struct mm_struct *
reuse = can_share_swap_page(old_page);
unlock_page(old_page);
}
- } else if (unlikely((vma->vm_flags & (VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED)) ==
- (VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED))) {
+ } else if (unlikely((vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED))) {
/*
- * Only catch write-faults on shared writable pages,
- * read-only shared pages can get COWed by
- * get_user_pages(.write=1, .force=1).
+ * Only catch write-faults on shared writable pages.
*/
+ BUG_ON(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE));
if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->page_mkwrite) {
/*
* Notify the address space that the page is about to
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-01 15:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-31 0:45 2.6.23 regression: accessing invalid mmap'ed memory from gdb causes unkillable spinning Duane Griffin
2007-10-31 4:19 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-31 10:27 ` Duane Griffin
2007-10-31 15:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-10-31 15:19 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-31 15:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-10-31 17:19 ` Duane Griffin
2007-10-31 22:55 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-31 23:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-11-01 2:37 ` Nick Piggin
2007-11-01 15:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-11-01 15:47 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2007-11-01 16:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-11-01 23:56 ` Nick Piggin
2007-11-02 1:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-11-02 6:30 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-31 6:42 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-31 6:56 ` David Miller
2007-10-31 7:41 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-31 7:44 ` David Miller
2007-11-02 5:02 ` David Miller
2007-11-02 10:45 ` Nick Piggin
2007-11-02 15:36 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071101154705.GA745@wotan.suse.de \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=duaneg@dghda.com \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.