Re: [PATCH 4.9] hugetlbfs: flush TLBs correctly after huge_pmd_unshare
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9] hugetlbfs: flush TLBs correctly after huge_pmd_unshare
- From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:49:01 -0800
- Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-s390 <linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-um@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch <linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <7a2feed4-7c73-c7ad-881e-c980235c8293@cambridgegreys.com>
- References: <3BD89231-2CB9-4CE5-B0FA-5B58419D7CB8@gmail.com> <7a2feed4-7c73-c7ad-881e-c980235c8293@cambridgegreys.com>
> On Nov 26, 2021, at 2:21 AM, Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26/11/2021 06:08, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Below is a patch to address CVE-2021-4002 [1] that I created to backport
>> to 4.9. The stable kernels of 4.14 and prior ones do not have unified
>> TLB flushing code, and I managed to mess up the arch code a couple of
>> times.
>> Now that the CVE is public, I would appreciate your review of this
>> patch. I send 4.9 for review - the other ones (4.14 and prior) are
>> pretty similar.
>> [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/11/25/1
>> Thanks,
>> Nadav
>
> I do not quite see the rationale for patching um
>
> It supports only standard size pages. You should not be able to map a huge page there (and hugetlbfs).
>
> I have "non-standard page size" somewhere towards the end of my queue, but it keeps falling through - not enough spare time to work on it.
Thanks for your review.
I did not look at the dependencies, so I did not even look if
hugetlbfs depends on !um.
Do you prefer that for um, I will just do a BUG()? I prefer
to have a stub just to avoid potential build issues.
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]