Hi Catalin,
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 10:28 AM Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 10:19:20PM -0800, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> > Thanks for the information. We encountered a similar issue internally
> > with the Android 5.15 common kernel. We tracked it down to an issue
> > with page migration, where the source page was a userspace page with
> > MTE tags, and the target page was allocated using KASAN (i.e. having
> > a non-zero KASAN tag). This caused tag check faults when the page was
> > subsequently accessed by the kernel as a result of the mismatching tags
> > from userspace. Given the number of different ways that page migration
> > target pages can be allocated, the simplest fix that we could think of
> > was to synchronize the KASAN tag in copy_highpage().
> >
> > Can you try the patch below and let us know whether it fixes the issue?
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c
> > index 24913271e898c..87ed38e9747bd 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c
> > @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ void copy_highpage(struct page *to, struct page *from)
> >
> > if (system_supports_mte() && test_bit(PG_mte_tagged, &from->flags)) {
> > set_bit(PG_mte_tagged, &to->flags);
> > + if (kasan_hw_tags_enabled())
> > + page_kasan_tag_set(to, page_kasan_tag(from));
> > mte_copy_page_tags(kto, kfrom);
>
> Why not just page_kasan_tag_reset(to)? If PG_mte_tagged is set on the
> 'from' page, the tags are random anyway and page_kasan_tag(from) should
> already be 0xff. It makes more sense to do the same for the 'to' page
> rather than copying the tag from the 'from' page. IOW, we are copying
> user-controlled tags into a page, the kernel should have a match-all tag
> in page->flags.
That would also work, but I was thinking that if copy_highpage() were
being used to copy a KASAN page we should keep the original tag in
order to maintain tag checks for page accesses.
> > Catalin, please let us know what you think of the patch above. It
> > effectively partially undoes commit 20794545c146 ("arm64: kasan: Revert
> > "arm64: mte: reset the page tag in page->flags""), but this seems okay
> > to me because the mentioned race condition shouldn't affect "new" pages
> > such as those being used as migration targets. The smp_wmb() that was
> > there before doesn't seem necessary for the same reason.
> >
> > If the patch is okay, we should apply it to the 6.1 stable kernel. The
> > problem appears to be "fixed" in the mainline kernel because of
> > a bad merge conflict resolution on my part; when I rebased commit
> > e059853d14ca ("arm64: mte: Fix/clarify the PG_mte_tagged semantics")
> > past commit 20794545c146, it looks like I accidentally brought back the
> > page_kasan_tag_reset() line removed in the latter. But we should align
> > the mainline kernel with whatever we decide to do on 6.1.
>
> Happy accident ;). When I reverted such calls in commit 20794545c146, my
> assumption was that we always get a page that went through
> post_alloc_hook() and the tags were reset. But it seems that's not
> always the case (and probably wasteful anyway if we have to zero the
> tags and data on a page we know we are going to override via
> copy_highpage() anyway). The barrier doesn't help, so we shouldn't add
> it back.
>
> So, I'm fine with a stable fix but I wonder whether we should backport
> the whole "Fix/clarify the PG_mte_tagged semantics" series instead.
That seems fine to me (or as well as the above patch if we decide to
copy the tag).
Peter
