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
Subject: Re: 2.6.23 regression: accessing invalid mmap'ed memory from gdb causes unkillable spinning
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 03:37:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071101023758.GA30613@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0710311602170.3342@woody.linux-foundation.org>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:08:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > No that would be great. Fingers crossed it won't cause any problems.
>
> I actually doubt it will cause problems.
>
> 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?
But I think that is pretty arbitrary as well. What the "force" argument to
get_user_pages on a MAP_SHARED vma effectively does is punt the permission
check from the vma permissions to the file permissions. If you've opened the
file WR but mmap()ed PROT_READ, it goes ahead and COWs, wheras if you've
opened the file RDONLY it -EFAULTs.
This seems strange wrong, because the act of COWing seems to be exactly
done in order to *absolve* us of file permissions (if we're COWing, why
should it matter if the file happened to be readonly or not).
Could we just try disallow COW for MAP_SHARED mappings?
Seeing as we're doing the break-ptrace thing this release already ;)
All the stuff I know of that requires forced COW (ie. gdb for breakpoints),
does so on MAP_PRIVATE mappings.
I know this is one of Hugh's bugbears. I don't know whether he's thought
out how to remove it, but I wonder if the appended patch is roughly in
the right direction?
> But if people have test-cases for ptrace and/or other magical users of
> 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.
---
Index: linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memory.c
+++ linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
@@ -1563,13 +1563,11 @@ 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
Index: linux-2.6/mm/mmap.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/mmap.c
+++ linux-2.6/mm/mmap.c
@@ -980,9 +980,11 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file
if (locks_verify_locked(inode))
return -EAGAIN;
- 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;
/* fall through */
case MAP_PRIVATE:
@@ -998,6 +1000,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file
if (!file->f_op || !file->f_op->mmap)
return -ENODEV;
+
break;
default:
@@ -1007,6 +1010,8 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file
switch (flags & MAP_TYPE) {
case MAP_SHARED:
vm_flags |= VM_SHARED | VM_MAYSHARE;
+ if (!(vm_flags & VM_WRITE))
+ vm_flags &= ~VM_MAYWRITE;
break;
case MAP_PRIVATE:
/*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-01 2:38 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 [this message]
2007-11-01 15:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-11-01 15:47 ` Nick Piggin
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=20071101023758.GA30613@wotan.suse.de \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=duaneg@dghda.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox