On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 5:21 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 04:42:23PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > Since I haven't sent a new version of my old series for almost a year,
> > I think it'd be fine to take Luigi's patch for now, and undo it at a
> > later point when/if we want to actually use proper locking here
> > because we're worried about concurrent access to the MM.
>
> IIRC one of the major points of that work was not "proper locking" but
> to have enough locking to be complatible with lockdep so we could add
> assertions like in get_user_pages and find_vma.
That's part of it; but it's also for making the code more clearly
correct and future-proofing it. Looking at it now, I think
process_madvise() might actually already be able to race with execve()
to some degree; and if you made a change like this to the current
kernel:
diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
index 6d3d348b17f4..3648c198673c 100644
--- a/mm/madvise.c
+++ b/mm/madvise.c
@@ -1043,12 +1043,14 @@ madvise_behavior_valid(int behavior)
static bool
process_madvise_behavior_valid(int behavior)
{
switch (behavior) {
case MADV_COLD:
case MADV_PAGEOUT:
+ case MADV_DOFORK:
+ case MADV_DONTFORK:
return true;
default:
return false;
}
}
it would probably introduce a memory corruption bug, because then
someone might be able to destroy the stack VMA between
setup_new_exec() and setup_arg_pages() by using process_madvise() to
trigger VMA splitting/merging in the right pattern.
