From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] =?utf-8?B?RG9u4oCZ?= =?utf-8?Q?t?= leave executable TLB entries to freed pages Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:57:35 +0000 Message-ID: <20181128095734.GA23467@arm.com> References: <20181128000754.18056-1-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> <449E6648-5599-476D-8136-EE570101F930@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Rick Edgecombe , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , linux-mm , LKML , Kernel Hardening , naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, David Miller , Masami Hiramatsu , rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@redhat.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, jeyu@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, jannh@google.com, kristen@linux.intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, deneen.t.dock@intel.com To: Nadav Amit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <449E6648-5599-476D-8136-EE570101F930@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 05:21:08PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote: > > On Nov 27, 2018, at 5:06 PM, Nadav Amit wrote: > > > >> On Nov 27, 2018, at 4:07 PM, Rick Edgecombe wrote: > >> > >> Sometimes when memory is freed via the module subsystem, an executable > >> permissioned TLB entry can remain to a freed page. If the page is re-used to > >> back an address that will receive data from userspace, it can result in user > >> data being mapped as executable in the kernel. The root of this behavior is > >> vfree lazily flushing the TLB, but not lazily freeing the underlying pages. > >> > >> There are sort of three categories of this which show up across modules, bpf, > >> kprobes and ftrace: > >> > >> 1. When executable memory is touched and then immediatly freed > >> > >> This shows up in a couple error conditions in the module loader and BPF JIT > >> compiler. > > > > Interesting! > > > > Note that this may cause conflict with "x86: avoid W^X being broken during > > modules loading”, which I recently submitted. > > I actually have not looked on the vmalloc() code too much recent, but it > seems … strange: > > void vm_unmap_aliases(void) > { > > ... > mutex_lock(&vmap_purge_lock); > purge_fragmented_blocks_allcpus(); > if (!__purge_vmap_area_lazy(start, end) && flush) > flush_tlb_kernel_range(start, end); > mutex_unlock(&vmap_purge_lock); > } > > Since __purge_vmap_area_lazy() releases the memory, it seems there is a time > window between the release of the region and the TLB flush, in which the > area can be allocated for another purpose. This can result in a > (theoretical) correctness issue. No? If __purge_vmap_area_lazy() returns false, then it hasn't freed the memory, so we only invalidate the TLB if 'flush' is true in that case. If __purge_vmap_area_lazy() returns true instead, then it takes care of the TLB invalidation before the freeing. Will