On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 05:15:28AM +0100, Max Filippov wrote:
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 26 May 2013 03:42, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> Is it intentional that threads of a process that invoked munmap syscall
>> >> can see TLB entries pointing to already freed pages, or it is a bug?
>> >
>> > If it happens, this would be a bug. It means that a process can access
>> > a physical page that has been allocated to something else, possibly
>> > kernel data.
>> >
>> >> I'm talking about zap_pmd_range and zap_pte_range:
>> >>
>> >> zap_pmd_range
>> >> zap_pte_range
>> >> arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode
>> >> ptep_get_and_clear_full
>> >> tlb_remove_tlb_entry
>> >> __tlb_remove_page
>> >> arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode
>> >> cond_resched
>> >>
>> >> With the default arch_{enter,leave}_lazy_mmu_mode, tlb_remove_tlb_entry
>> >> and __tlb_remove_page there is a loop in the zap_pte_range that clears
>> >> PTEs and frees corresponding pages, but doesn't flush TLB, and
>> >> surrounding loop in the zap_pmd_range that calls cond_resched. If a thread
>> >> of the same process gets scheduled then it is able to see TLB entries
>> >> pointing to already freed physical pages.
>> >
>> > It looks to me like cond_resched() here introduces a possible bug but
>> > it depends on the actual arch code, especially the
>> > __tlb_remove_tlb_entry() function. On ARM we record the range in
>> > tlb_remove_tlb_entry() and queue the pages to be removed in
>> > __tlb_remove_page(). It pretty much acts like tlb_fast_mode() == 0
>> > even for the UP case (which is also needed for hardware speculative
>> > TLB loads). The tlb_finish_mmu() takes care of whatever pages are left
>> > to be freed.
>> >
>> > With a dummy __tlb_remove_tlb_entry() and tlb_fast_mode() == 1,
>> > cond_resched() in zap_pmd_range() would cause problems.
>>
>> So, looks like most architectures in the UP configuration should have
>> this issue (unless they flush TLB in the switch_mm, even when switching
>> to the same mm):
>
> switch_mm() wouldn't be called if switching to the same mm. You could do
Hmm... Strange, but as far as I can tell from the context_switch it would.
> it in switch_to() but it's not efficient (or before returning to user
> space on the same processor).
>
> Do you happen to have a user-space test for this? Something like one
I only had mtest05 from LTP that triggered TLB/PTE inconsistency, but
not anything that would really try to peek at the freed page. I can make
such test though.
> thread does an mmap(), writes some poison value, munmap(). The other
> thread keeps checking the poison value while trapping and ignoring any
> SIGSEGV. If it's working correctly, the second thread should either get
> a SIGSEGV or read the poison value.
--
Thanks.
-- Max
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>