Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: mm: drop VM_FAULT_BADMAP/VM_FAULT_BADACCESS

Catalin Marinas
2024-04-09T14:29:12Z

Hi Kefeng,

On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 04:12:10PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index 405f9aa831bd..61a2acae0dca 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -500,9 +500,6 @@ static bool is_write_abort(unsigned long esr)
> return (esr & ESR_ELx_WNR) && !(esr & ESR_ELx_CM);
> }
>
> -#define VM_FAULT_BADMAP ((__force vm_fault_t)0x010000)
> -#define VM_FAULT_BADACCESS ((__force vm_fault_t)0x020000)
> -
> static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr,
> struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> @@ -513,6 +510,7 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr,
> unsigned int mm_flags = FAULT_FLAG_DEFAULT;
> unsigned long addr = untagged_addr(far);
> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> + int si_code;

I think we should initialise this to 0. Currently all paths seem to set
si_code to something meaningful but I'm not sure the last 'else' close
in this patch is guaranteed to always cover exactly those earlier code
paths updating si_code. I'm not talking about the 'goto bad_area' paths
since they set 'fault' to 0 but the fall through after the second (under
the mm lock) handle_mm_fault().

> if (kprobe_page_fault(regs, esr))
> return 0;
> @@ -572,9 +570,10 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr,
>
> if (!(vma->vm_flags & vm_flags)) {
> vma_end_read(vma);
> - fault = VM_FAULT_BADACCESS;
> + fault = 0;
> + si_code = SEGV_ACCERR;
> count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
> - goto done;
> + goto bad_area;
> }
> fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, mm_flags | FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK, regs);
> if (!(fault & (VM_FAULT_RETRY | VM_FAULT_COMPLETED)))
> @@ -599,15 +598,18 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr,
> retry:
> vma = lock_mm_and_find_vma(mm, addr, regs);
> if (unlikely(!vma)) {
> - fault = VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
> - goto done;
> + fault = 0;
> + si_code = SEGV_MAPERR;
> + goto bad_area;
> }
>
> - if (!(vma->vm_flags & vm_flags))
> - fault = VM_FAULT_BADACCESS;
> - else
> - fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, mm_flags, regs);
> + if (!(vma->vm_flags & vm_flags)) {
> + fault = 0;
> + si_code = SEGV_ACCERR;
> + goto bad_area;
> + }

What's releasing the mm lock here? Prior to this change, it is falling
through to mmap_read_unlock() below or handle_mm_fault() was releasing
the lock (VM_FAULT_RETRY, VM_FAULT_COMPLETED).

>
> + fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, mm_flags, regs);
> /* Quick path to respond to signals */
> if (fault_signal_pending(fault, regs)) {
> if (!user_mode(regs))
> @@ -626,13 +628,11 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr,
> mmap_read_unlock(mm);
>
> done:
> - /*
> - * Handle the "normal" (no error) case first.
> - */
> - if (likely(!(fault & (VM_FAULT_ERROR | VM_FAULT_BADMAP |
> - VM_FAULT_BADACCESS))))
> + /* Handle the "normal" (no error) case first. */
> + if (likely(!(fault & VM_FAULT_ERROR)))
> return 0;
>
> +bad_area:
> /*
> * If we are in kernel mode at this point, we have no context to
> * handle this fault with.
> @@ -667,13 +667,8 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr,
>
> arm64_force_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, far, lsb, inf->name);
> } else {
> - /*
> - * Something tried to access memory that isn't in our memory
> - * map.
> - */
> - arm64_force_sig_fault(SIGSEGV,
> - fault == VM_FAULT_BADACCESS ? SEGV_ACCERR : SEGV_MAPERR,
> - far, inf->name);
> + /* Something tried to access memory that out of memory map */
> + arm64_force_sig_fault(SIGSEGV, si_code, far, inf->name);
> }

We can get to the 'else' close after the second handle_mm_fault(). Do we
guarantee that 'fault == 0' in this last block? If not, maybe a warning
and some safe initialisation for 'si_code' to avoid leaking stack data.

--
Catalin