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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox