On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:42:32AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > Writing to file-backed mappings which require folio dirty tracking using > GUP is a fundamentally broken operation, as kernel write access to GUP > mappings do not adhere to the semantics expected by a file system. > > A GUP caller uses the direct mapping to access the folio, which does not > cause write notify to trigger, nor does it enforce that the caller marks > the folio dirty. > > The problem arises when, after an initial write to the folio, writeback > results in the folio being cleaned and then the caller, via the GUP > interface, writes to the folio again. > > As a result of the use of this secondary, direct, mapping to the folio no > write notify will occur, and if the caller does mark the folio dirty, this > will be done so unexpectedly. > > For example, consider the following scenario:- > > 1. A folio is written to via GUP which write-faults the memory, notifying > the file system and dirtying the folio. > 2. Later, writeback is triggered, resulting in the folio being cleaned and > the PTE being marked read-only. > 3. The GUP caller writes to the folio, as it is mapped read/write via the > direct mapping. > 4. The GUP caller, now done with the page, unpins it and sets it dirty > (though it does not have to). > > This results in both data being written to a folio without writenotify, and > the folio being dirtied unexpectedly (if the caller decides to do so). > > This issue was first reported by Jan Kara [1] in 2018, where the problem > resulted in file system crashes. > > This is only relevant when the mappings are file-backed and the underlying > file system requires folio dirty tracking. File systems which do not, such > as shmem or hugetlb, are not at risk and therefore can be written to > without issue. > > Unfortunately this limitation of GUP has been present for some time and > requires future rework of the GUP API in order to provide correct write > access to such mappings. > > However, for the time being we introduce this check to prevent the most > egregious case of this occurring, use of the FOLL_LONGTERM pin. > > These mappings are considerably more likely to be written to after > folios are cleaned and thus simply must not be permitted to do so. > > As part of this change we separate out vma_needs_dirty_tracking() as a > helper function to determine this which is distinct from > vma_wants_writenotify() which is specific to determining which PTE flags to > set. > > [1]:https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20180103100430.GE4911@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > include/linux/mm.h | 1 + > mm/gup.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > mm/mmap.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h > index 37554b08bb28..f7da02fc89c6 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mm.h > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h > @@ -2433,6 +2433,7 @@ extern unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > #define MM_CP_UFFD_WP_ALL (MM_CP_UFFD_WP | \ > MM_CP_UFFD_WP_RESOLVE) > > +bool vma_needs_dirty_tracking(struct vm_area_struct *vma); > int vma_wants_writenotify(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pgprot_t vm_page_prot); > static inline bool vma_wants_manual_pte_write_upgrade(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > { > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c > index 1f72a717232b..d36a5db9feb1 100644 > --- a/mm/gup.c > +++ b/mm/gup.c > @@ -959,16 +959,51 @@ static int faultin_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > return 0; > } > > +/* > + * Writing to file-backed mappings which require folio dirty tracking using GUP > + * is a fundamentally broken operation, as kernel write access to GUP mappings > + * do not adhere to the semantics expected by a file system. > + * > + * Consider the following scenario:- > + * > + * 1. A folio is written to via GUP which write-faults the memory, notifying > + * the file system and dirtying the folio. > + * 2. Later, writeback is triggered, resulting in the folio being cleaned and > + * the PTE being marked read-only. > + * 3. The GUP caller writes to the folio, as it is mapped read/write via the > + * direct mapping. > + * 4. The GUP caller, now done with the page, unpins it and sets it dirty > + * (though it does not have to). > + * > + * This results in both data being written to a folio without writenotify, and > + * the folio being dirtied unexpectedly (if the caller decides to do so). > + */ > +static bool writeable_file_mapping_allowed(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > + unsigned long gup_flags) > +{ > + /* If we aren't pinning then no problematic write can occur. */ > + if (!(gup_flags & (FOLL_GET | FOLL_PIN))) > + return true; > + > + /* We limit this check to the most egregious case - a long term pin. */ > + if (!(gup_flags & FOLL_LONGTERM)) > + return true; > + > + /* If the VMA requires dirty tracking then GUP will be problematic. */ > + return vma_needs_dirty_tracking(vma); > +} > + > static int check_vma_flags(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long gup_flags) > { > vm_flags_t vm_flags = vma->vm_flags; > int write = (gup_flags & FOLL_WRITE); > int foreign = (gup_flags & FOLL_REMOTE); > + bool vma_anon = vma_is_anonymous(vma); > > if (vm_flags & (VM_IO | VM_PFNMAP)) > return -EFAULT; > > - if (gup_flags & FOLL_ANON && !vma_is_anonymous(vma)) > + if ((gup_flags & FOLL_ANON) && !vma_anon) > return -EFAULT; > > if ((gup_flags & FOLL_LONGTERM) && vma_is_fsdax(vma)) > @@ -978,6 +1013,10 @@ static int check_vma_flags(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long gup_flags) > return -EFAULT; > > if (write) { > + if (!vma_anon && > + !writeable_file_mapping_allowed(vma, gup_flags)) > + return -EFAULT; > + > if (!(vm_flags & VM_WRITE)) { > if (!(gup_flags & FOLL_FORCE)) > return -EFAULT; > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c > index 536bbb8fa0ae..7b6344d1832a 100644 > --- a/mm/mmap.c > +++ b/mm/mmap.c > @@ -1475,6 +1475,31 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(old_mmap, struct mmap_arg_struct __user *, arg) > } > #endif /* __ARCH_WANT_SYS_OLD_MMAP */ > > +/* Do VMA operations imply write notify is required? */ > +static bool vm_ops_needs_writenotify(const struct vm_operations_struct *vm_ops) > +{ > + return vm_ops && (vm_ops->page_mkwrite || vm_ops->pfn_mkwrite); > +} > + > +/* > + * Does this VMA require the underlying folios to have their dirty state > + * tracked? > + */ > +bool vma_needs_dirty_tracking(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > +{ > + /* Does the filesystem need to be notified? */ > + if (vm_ops_needs_writenotify(vma->vm_ops)) > + return true; > + > + /* Specialty mapping? */ > + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) > + return false; > + > + /* Can the mapping track the dirty pages? */ > + return vma->vm_file && vma->vm_file->f_mapping && > + mapping_can_writeback(vma->vm_file->f_mapping); > +} > + > /* > * Some shared mappings will want the pages marked read-only > * to track write events. If so, we'll downgrade vm_page_prot > @@ -1484,14 +1509,13 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(old_mmap, struct mmap_arg_struct __user *, arg) > int vma_wants_writenotify(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pgprot_t vm_page_prot) > { > vm_flags_t vm_flags = vma->vm_flags; > - const struct vm_operations_struct *vm_ops = vma->vm_ops; > > /* If it was private or non-writable, the write bit is already clear */ > if ((vm_flags & (VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED)) != ((VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED))) > return 0; > > /* The backer wishes to know when pages are first written to? */ > - if (vm_ops && (vm_ops->page_mkwrite || vm_ops->pfn_mkwrite)) > + if (vm_ops_needs_writenotify(vma->vm_ops)) > return 1; > > /* The open routine did something to the protections that pgprot_modify > @@ -1511,13 +1535,7 @@ int vma_wants_writenotify(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pgprot_t vm_page_prot) > if (userfaultfd_wp(vma)) > return 1; > > - /* Specialty mapping? */ > - if (vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) > - return 0; > - > - /* Can the mapping track the dirty pages? */ > - return vma->vm_file && vma->vm_file->f_mapping && > - mapping_can_writeback(vma->vm_file->f_mapping); > + return vma_needs_dirty_tracking(vma); > } > > /* > -- > 2.40.0 Apologies, for some reason I forgot to include the revision list in that patch, enclosed below:- v5: - Rebased on latest mm-unstable as of 25th April 2023. - Some small refactorings suggested by John. - Added an extended description of the problem in the comment around writeable_file_mapping_allowed() for clarity. - Updated commit message as suggested by Mika and John. v4: - Split out vma_needs_dirty_tracking() from vma_wants_writenotify() to reduce duplication and update to use this in the GUP check. Note that both separately check vm_ops_needs_writenotify() as the latter needs to test this before the vm_pgprot_modify() test, resulting in vma_wants_writenotify() checking this twice, however it is such a small check this should not be egregious. https://lore.kernel.org/all/3b92d56f55671a0389252379237703df6e86ea48.1682464032.git.lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx/ v3: - Rebased on latest mm-unstable as of 24th April 2023. - Explicitly check whether file system requires folio dirtying. Note that vma_wants_writenotify() could not be used directly as it is very much focused on determining if the PTE r/w should be set (e.g. assuming private mapping does not require it as already set, soft dirty considerations). - Tested code against shmem and hugetlb mappings - confirmed that these are not disallowed by the check. - Eliminate FOLL_ALLOW_BROKEN_FILE_MAPPING flag and instead perform check only for FOLL_LONGTERM pins. - As a result, limit check to internal GUP code. https://lore.kernel.org/all/23c19e27ef0745f6d3125976e047ee0da62569d4.1682406295.git.lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx/ v2: - Add accidentally excluded ptrace_access_vm() use of FOLL_ALLOW_BROKEN_FILE_MAPPING. - Tweak commit message. https://lore.kernel.org/all/c8ee7e02d3d4f50bb3e40855c53bda39eec85b7d.1682321768.git.lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx/ v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/f86dc089b460c80805e321747b0898fd1efe93d7.1682168199.git.lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx/
