[PATCH v3 1/2] userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers

[PATCH v3 1/2] userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers

[Peter Collingbourne]

If a user program uses userfaultfd on ranges of heap memory, it may
end up passing a tagged pointer to the kernel in the range.start
field of the UFFDIO_REGISTER ioctl. This can happen when using an
MTE-capable allocator, or on Android if using the Tagged Pointers
feature for MTE readiness [1].

When a fault subsequently occurs, the tag is stripped from the fault
address returned to the application in the fault.address field
of struct uffd_msg. However, from the application's perspective,
the tagged address *is* the memory address, so if the application
is unaware of memory tags, it may get confused by receiving an
address that is, from its point of view, outside of the bounds of the
allocation. We observed this behavior in the kselftest for userfaultfd
[2] but other applications could have the same problem.

Address this by not untagging pointers passed to the userfaultfd
ioctls. Instead, let the system call fail. This will provide an
early indication of problems with tag-unaware userspace code instead
of letting the code get confused later, and is consistent with how
we decided to handle brk/mmap/mremap in commit dcde237319e6 ("mm:
Avoid creating virtual address aliases in brk()/mmap()/mremap()"),
as well as being consistent with the existing tagged address ABI
documentation relating to how ioctl arguments are handled.

The code change is a revert of commit 7d0325749a6c ("userfaultfd:
untag user pointers").

[1] https://source.android.com/devices/tech/debug/tagged-pointers
[2] tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c

Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I761aa9f0344454c482b83fcfcce547db0a25501b
Fixes: 63f0c6037965 ("arm64: Introduce prctl() options to control the tagged user addresses ABI")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.4
---
 Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst | 25 +++++++++++++++-------
 fs/userfaultfd.c                           | 22 +++++++++----------
 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst b/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst
index 459e6b66ff68..737f9d8565a2 100644
--- a/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst
+++ b/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst
@@ -45,14 +45,23 @@ how the user addresses are used by the kernel:
 
 1. User addresses not accessed by the kernel but used for address space
    management (e.g. ``mprotect()``, ``madvise()``). The use of valid
-   tagged pointers in this context is allowed with the exception of
-   ``brk()``, ``mmap()`` and the ``new_address`` argument to
-   ``mremap()`` as these have the potential to alias with existing
-   user addresses.
-
-   NOTE: This behaviour changed in v5.6 and so some earlier kernels may
-   incorrectly accept valid tagged pointers for the ``brk()``,
-   ``mmap()`` and ``mremap()`` system calls.
+   tagged pointers in this context is allowed with these exceptions:
+
+   - ``brk()``, ``mmap()`` and the ``new_address`` argument to
+     ``mremap()`` as these have the potential to alias with existing
+      user addresses.
+
+     NOTE: This behaviour changed in v5.6 and so some earlier kernels may
+     incorrectly accept valid tagged pointers for the ``brk()``,
+     ``mmap()`` and ``mremap()`` system calls.
+
+   - The ``range.start`` argument to the ``UFFDIO_REGISTER`` ``ioctl()``
+     used on a file descriptor obtained from ``userfaultfd()``, as
+     fault addresses subsequently obtained by reading the file descriptor
+     will be untagged, which may otherwise confuse tag-unaware programs.
+
+     NOTE: This behaviour changed in v5.14 and so some earlier kernels may
+     incorrectly accept valid tagged pointers for this system call.
 
 2. User addresses accessed by the kernel (e.g. ``write()``). This ABI
    relaxation is disabled by default and the application thread needs to
diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
index dd7a6c62b56f..7613efe002c1 100644
--- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
@@ -1236,23 +1236,21 @@ static __always_inline void wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
 }
 
 static __always_inline int validate_range(struct mm_struct *mm,
-					  __u64 *start, __u64 len)
+					  __u64 start, __u64 len)
 {
 	__u64 task_size = mm->task_size;
 
-	*start = untagged_addr(*start);
-
-	if (*start & ~PAGE_MASK)
+	if (start & ~PAGE_MASK)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	if (len & ~PAGE_MASK)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	if (!len)
 		return -EINVAL;
-	if (*start < mmap_min_addr)
+	if (start < mmap_min_addr)
 		return -EINVAL;
-	if (*start >= task_size)
+	if (start >= task_size)
 		return -EINVAL;
-	if (len > task_size - *start)
+	if (len > task_size - start)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -1313,7 +1311,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_register(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
 		vm_flags |= VM_UFFD_MINOR;
 	}
 
-	ret = validate_range(mm, &uffdio_register.range.start,
+	ret = validate_range(mm, uffdio_register.range.start,
 			     uffdio_register.range.len);
 	if (ret)
 		goto out;
@@ -1519,7 +1517,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_unregister(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
 	if (copy_from_user(&uffdio_unregister, buf, sizeof(uffdio_unregister)))
 		goto out;
 
-	ret = validate_range(mm, &uffdio_unregister.start,
+	ret = validate_range(mm, uffdio_unregister.start,
 			     uffdio_unregister.len);
 	if (ret)
 		goto out;
@@ -1668,7 +1666,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_wake(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
 	if (copy_from_user(&uffdio_wake, buf, sizeof(uffdio_wake)))
 		goto out;
 
-	ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, &uffdio_wake.start, uffdio_wake.len);
+	ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, uffdio_wake.start, uffdio_wake.len);
 	if (ret)
 		goto out;
 
@@ -1708,7 +1706,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_copy(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
 			   sizeof(uffdio_copy)-sizeof(__s64)))
 		goto out;
 
-	ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, &uffdio_copy.dst, uffdio_copy.len);
+	ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, uffdio_copy.dst, uffdio_copy.len);
 	if (ret)
 		goto out;
 	/*
@@ -1765,7 +1763,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_zeropage(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
 			   sizeof(uffdio_zeropage)-sizeof(__s64)))
 		goto out;
 
-	ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, &uffdio_zeropage.range.start,
+	ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, uffdio_zeropage.range.start,
 			     uffdio_zeropage.range.len);
 	if (ret)
 		goto out;
-- 
2.32.0.93.g670b81a890-goog

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers

[Andrey Konovalov]

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 12:57 AM Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com> wrote:
>
> If a user program uses userfaultfd on ranges of heap memory, it may
> end up passing a tagged pointer to the kernel in the range.start
> field of the UFFDIO_REGISTER ioctl. This can happen when using an
> MTE-capable allocator, or on Android if using the Tagged Pointers
> feature for MTE readiness [1].
>
> When a fault subsequently occurs, the tag is stripped from the fault
> address returned to the application in the fault.address field
> of struct uffd_msg. However, from the application's perspective,
> the tagged address *is* the memory address, so if the application
> is unaware of memory tags, it may get confused by receiving an
> address that is, from its point of view, outside of the bounds of the
> allocation. We observed this behavior in the kselftest for userfaultfd
> [2] but other applications could have the same problem.
>
> Address this by not untagging pointers passed to the userfaultfd
> ioctls. Instead, let the system call fail. This will provide an
> early indication of problems with tag-unaware userspace code instead
> of letting the code get confused later, and is consistent with how
> we decided to handle brk/mmap/mremap in commit dcde237319e6 ("mm:
> Avoid creating virtual address aliases in brk()/mmap()/mremap()"),
> as well as being consistent with the existing tagged address ABI
> documentation relating to how ioctl arguments are handled.
>
> The code change is a revert of commit 7d0325749a6c ("userfaultfd:
> untag user pointers").
>
> [1] https://source.android.com/devices/tech/debug/tagged-pointers
> [2] tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
> Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I761aa9f0344454c482b83fcfcce547db0a25501b
> Fixes: 63f0c6037965 ("arm64: Introduce prctl() options to control the tagged user addresses ABI")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.4
> ---
>  Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst | 25 +++++++++++++++-------
>  fs/userfaultfd.c                           | 22 +++++++++----------
>  2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst b/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst
> index 459e6b66ff68..737f9d8565a2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst
> @@ -45,14 +45,23 @@ how the user addresses are used by the kernel:
>
>  1. User addresses not accessed by the kernel but used for address space
>     management (e.g. ``mprotect()``, ``madvise()``). The use of valid
> -   tagged pointers in this context is allowed with the exception of
> -   ``brk()``, ``mmap()`` and the ``new_address`` argument to
> -   ``mremap()`` as these have the potential to alias with existing
> -   user addresses.
> -
> -   NOTE: This behaviour changed in v5.6 and so some earlier kernels may
> -   incorrectly accept valid tagged pointers for the ``brk()``,
> -   ``mmap()`` and ``mremap()`` system calls.
> +   tagged pointers in this context is allowed with these exceptions:
> +
> +   - ``brk()``, ``mmap()`` and the ``new_address`` argument to
> +     ``mremap()`` as these have the potential to alias with existing
> +      user addresses.
> +
> +     NOTE: This behaviour changed in v5.6 and so some earlier kernels may
> +     incorrectly accept valid tagged pointers for the ``brk()``,
> +     ``mmap()`` and ``mremap()`` system calls.
> +
> +   - The ``range.start`` argument to the ``UFFDIO_REGISTER`` ``ioctl()``
> +     used on a file descriptor obtained from ``userfaultfd()``, as
> +     fault addresses subsequently obtained by reading the file descriptor
> +     will be untagged, which may otherwise confuse tag-unaware programs.
> +
> +     NOTE: This behaviour changed in v5.14 and so some earlier kernels may
> +     incorrectly accept valid tagged pointers for this system call.
>
>  2. User addresses accessed by the kernel (e.g. ``write()``). This ABI
>     relaxation is disabled by default and the application thread needs to
> diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> index dd7a6c62b56f..7613efe002c1 100644
> --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -1236,23 +1236,21 @@ static __always_inline void wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
>  }
>
>  static __always_inline int validate_range(struct mm_struct *mm,
> -                                         __u64 *start, __u64 len)
> +                                         __u64 start, __u64 len)
>  {
>         __u64 task_size = mm->task_size;
>
> -       *start = untagged_addr(*start);
> -
> -       if (*start & ~PAGE_MASK)
> +       if (start & ~PAGE_MASK)
>                 return -EINVAL;
>         if (len & ~PAGE_MASK)
>                 return -EINVAL;
>         if (!len)
>                 return -EINVAL;
> -       if (*start < mmap_min_addr)
> +       if (start < mmap_min_addr)
>                 return -EINVAL;
> -       if (*start >= task_size)
> +       if (start >= task_size)
>                 return -EINVAL;
> -       if (len > task_size - *start)
> +       if (len > task_size - start)
>                 return -EINVAL;
>         return 0;
>  }
> @@ -1313,7 +1311,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_register(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
>                 vm_flags |= VM_UFFD_MINOR;
>         }
>
> -       ret = validate_range(mm, &uffdio_register.range.start,
> +       ret = validate_range(mm, uffdio_register.range.start,
>                              uffdio_register.range.len);
>         if (ret)
>                 goto out;
> @@ -1519,7 +1517,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_unregister(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
>         if (copy_from_user(&uffdio_unregister, buf, sizeof(uffdio_unregister)))
>                 goto out;
>
> -       ret = validate_range(mm, &uffdio_unregister.start,
> +       ret = validate_range(mm, uffdio_unregister.start,
>                              uffdio_unregister.len);
>         if (ret)
>                 goto out;
> @@ -1668,7 +1666,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_wake(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
>         if (copy_from_user(&uffdio_wake, buf, sizeof(uffdio_wake)))
>                 goto out;
>
> -       ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, &uffdio_wake.start, uffdio_wake.len);
> +       ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, uffdio_wake.start, uffdio_wake.len);
>         if (ret)
>                 goto out;
>
> @@ -1708,7 +1706,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_copy(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
>                            sizeof(uffdio_copy)-sizeof(__s64)))
>                 goto out;
>
> -       ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, &uffdio_copy.dst, uffdio_copy.len);
> +       ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, uffdio_copy.dst, uffdio_copy.len);
>         if (ret)
>                 goto out;
>         /*
> @@ -1765,7 +1763,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_zeropage(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
>                            sizeof(uffdio_zeropage)-sizeof(__s64)))
>                 goto out;
>
> -       ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, &uffdio_zeropage.range.start,
> +       ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, uffdio_zeropage.range.start,
>                              uffdio_zeropage.range.len);
>         if (ret)
>                 goto out;
> --
> 2.32.0.93.g670b81a890-goog
>

Reviewed-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>

[PATCH v3 2/2] selftest: use mmap instead of posix_memalign to allocate memory

[Peter Collingbourne]

This test passes pointers obtained from anon_allocate_area to the
userfaultfd and mremap APIs. This causes a problem if the system
allocator returns tagged pointers because with the tagged address ABI
the kernel rejects tagged addresses passed to these APIs, which would
end up causing the test to fail. To make this test compatible with
such system allocators, stop using the system allocator to allocate
memory in anon_allocate_area, and instead just use mmap.

Co-developed-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
Fixes: c47174fc362a ("userfaultfd: selftest")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.4
Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/Icac91064fcd923f77a83e8e133f8631c5b8fc241
---
 tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
index f5ab5e0312e7..d0f802053dfd 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
@@ -197,8 +197,10 @@ static int anon_release_pages(char *rel_area)
 
 static void anon_allocate_area(void **alloc_area)
 {
-	if (posix_memalign(alloc_area, page_size, nr_pages * page_size)) {
-		fprintf(stderr, "out of memory\n");
+	*alloc_area = mmap(NULL, nr_pages * page_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
+			   MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
+	if (*alloc_area == MAP_FAILED) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "anon memory mmap failed\n");
 		*alloc_area = NULL;
 	}
 }
-- 
2.32.0.93.g670b81a890-goog