Re: [RFC PATCH] userfaultfd: allow registration of ranges below mmap_min_addr

Lorenzo Stoakes
2026-04-09T08:01:26Z

On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 05:36:59AM -0700, Usama Arif wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 11:14:42 +0300 "Denis M. Karpov" <komlomal@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The current implementation of validate_range() in fs/userfaultfd.c
> > performs a hard check against mmap_min_addr without considering
> > capabilities, but the mmap() syscall uses security_mmap_addr()
> > which allows privileged processes (with CAP_SYS_RAWIO) to map below
> > mmap_min_addr. Furthermore, security_mmap_addr()->cap_mmap_addr() uses
> > dac_mmap_min_addr variable which can be changed with
> > /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min_addr.
> >
> > Because userfaultfd uses a different check, UFFDIO_REGISTER may fail
> > with -EINVAL for valid memory areas that were successfully mapped
> > below mmap_min_addr even with appropriate capabilities.
> >
> > This prevents apps like binary compilers from using UFFD for valid memory
> > regions mapped by application.
> >
> > Replace the rigid mmap_min_addr check with security_mmap_addr() to align
> > userfaultfd with the standard kernel memory mapping security policy.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Denis M. Karpov <komlomal@gmail.com>
> >
> > ---
> > Initial RFC following the discussion on the [BUG] thread.
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CADtiZd0tWysx5HMCUnOXfSHB7PXAuXg1Mh4eY_hUmH29S=sejg@mail.gmail.com/
> > ---
> > fs/userfaultfd.c | 4 +---
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > index bdc84e521..dbfe5b2a0 100644
> > --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > @@ -1238,15 +1238,13 @@ static __always_inline int validate_unaligned_range(
> > return -EINVAL;
> > if (!len)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > - if (start < mmap_min_addr)
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > if (start >= task_size)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > if (len > task_size - start)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > if (start + len <= start)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > - return 0;
> > + return security_mmap_addr(start);
>
> Is this introducing an ABI change?
>
> The old code returned -EINVAL when start was below mmap_min_addr.
> The new code calls security_mmap_addr() which returns -EPERM when
> the caller lacks CAP_SYS_RAWIO. Existing userspace callers checking
> specifically for -EINVAL would see different behavior start is
> below mmap_min_addr.

You mean API change? :) we don't guarantee ABI for kernel stuff anyway.

Firstly, as with Harry, I don't believe we should be duplicating checks here
anyway. UFFD is duplicative enough as it is.

And this is such a silly edge case that I don't think it is valid or reasonable
for us to account for whichever totally insane user relies on a pointless
re-check being done there and _then_ relies on the error code
being... -EINVAL... which is overloaded for a million other possible failures.

Let's let it be -EFAULT and remove this silly check altogether.

>
> > }
> >
> > static __always_inline int validate_range(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > --
> > 2.47.3
> >
> >

Thanks, Lorenzo