From patchwork Fri Jul 23 22:50:01 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Andrew Morton X-Patchwork-Id: 12397083 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4695DC4338F for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 22:50:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEFA560EB5 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 22:50:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org DEFA560EB5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 7D95A6B005D; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 78ADB6B006C; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:50:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 678EB6B0070; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:50:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0181.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.181]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EBC76B005D for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin20.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C387181355FF for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 22:50:04 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78395347128.20.612F265 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF60700B3D3 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 22:50:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 311D760F36; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 22:50:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1627080602; bh=6r5/HJ8Xu+CJBD2/fZuj9CmQNGPet2FahetOQYy6cCU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=zisOZAZYy5U7NKHdLj6qFaRm9kf91WuFs2H1iPdH0KOvr1rspr2POu1WodD+oIMN2 wc6GaU1reGQnkhYNKm+lLIP0g4Ig2qMTh2k/WshKqD2dmiXvN9a9IJa9xImQBxb4Rb vLvA1ATuiDsFVQk3mQrgHS4YISUZdmYJt45fyGPk= Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 15:50:01 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: aarcange@redhat.com, adelva@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, andreyknvl@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, Dave.Martin@arm.com, eugenis@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, lokeshgidra@google.com, mitchp@google.com, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, pcc@google.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, vincenzo.frascino@arm.com, will@kernel.org, willmcvicker@google.com Subject: [patch 01/15] userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers Message-ID: <20210723225001.ohM2zubyp%akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20210723154926.c6cda0f262b1990b950a5886@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: s-nail v14.8.16 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7AF60700B3D3 Authentication-Results: imf27.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=zisOZAZY; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf27.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 198.145.29.99 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org X-Stat-Signature: r4zn3f78sgz3b34ej8ohzitkb78i53kz X-HE-Tag: 1627080603-953040 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: From: Peter Collingbourne Subject: userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers Patch series "userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers", v5. If a user program uses userfaultfd on ranges of heap memory, it may end up passing a tagged pointer to the kernel in the range.start field of the UFFDIO_REGISTER ioctl. This can happen when using an MTE-capable allocator, or on Android if using the Tagged Pointers feature for MTE readiness [1]. When a fault subsequently occurs, the tag is stripped from the fault address returned to the application in the fault.address field of struct uffd_msg. However, from the application's perspective, the tagged address *is* the memory address, so if the application is unaware of memory tags, it may get confused by receiving an address that is, from its point of view, outside of the bounds of the allocation. We observed this behavior in the kselftest for userfaultfd [2] but other applications could have the same problem. Address this by not untagging pointers passed to the userfaultfd ioctls. Instead, let the system call fail. Also change the kselftest to use mmap so that it doesn't encounter this problem. [1] https://source.android.com/devices/tech/debug/tagged-pointers [2] tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c This patch (of 2): If a user program uses userfaultfd on ranges of heap memory, it may end up passing a tagged pointer to the kernel in the range.start field of the UFFDIO_REGISTER ioctl. This can happen when using an MTE-capable allocator, or on Android if using the Tagged Pointers feature for MTE readiness [1]. When a fault subsequently occurs, the tag is stripped from the fault address returned to the application in the fault.address field of struct uffd_msg. However, from the application's perspective, the tagged address *is* the memory address, so if the application is unaware of memory tags, it may get confused by receiving an address that is, from its point of view, outside of the bounds of the allocation. We observed this behavior in the kselftest for userfaultfd [2] but other applications could have the same problem. Address this by not untagging pointers passed to the userfaultfd ioctls. Instead, let the system call fail. This will provide an early indication of problems with tag-unaware userspace code instead of letting the code get confused later, and is consistent with how we decided to handle brk/mmap/mremap in commit dcde237319e6 ("mm: Avoid creating virtual address aliases in brk()/mmap()/mremap()"), as well as being consistent with the existing tagged address ABI documentation relating to how ioctl arguments are handled. The code change is a revert of commit 7d0325749a6c ("userfaultfd: untag user pointers") plus some fixups to some additional calls to validate_range that have appeared since then. [1] https://source.android.com/devices/tech/debug/tagged-pointers [2] tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210714195437.118982-1-pcc@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210714195437.118982-2-pcc@google.com Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I761aa9f0344454c482b83fcfcce547db0a25501b Fixes: 63f0c6037965 ("arm64: Introduce prctl() options to control the tagged user addresses ABI") Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne Reviewed-by: Andrey Konovalov Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas Cc: Alistair Delva Cc: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Dave Martin Cc: Evgenii Stepanov Cc: Lokesh Gidra Cc: Mitch Phillips Cc: Vincenzo Frascino Cc: Will Deacon Cc: William McVicker Cc: [5.4] Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst | 26 +++++++++++++------ fs/userfaultfd.c | 26 ++++++++----------- 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) --- a/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst~userfaultfd-do-not-untag-user-pointers +++ a/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst @@ -45,14 +45,24 @@ how the user addresses are used by the k 1. User addresses not accessed by the kernel but used for address space management (e.g. ``mprotect()``, ``madvise()``). The use of valid - tagged pointers in this context is allowed with the exception of - ``brk()``, ``mmap()`` and the ``new_address`` argument to - ``mremap()`` as these have the potential to alias with existing - user addresses. - - NOTE: This behaviour changed in v5.6 and so some earlier kernels may - incorrectly accept valid tagged pointers for the ``brk()``, - ``mmap()`` and ``mremap()`` system calls. + tagged pointers in this context is allowed with these exceptions: + + - ``brk()``, ``mmap()`` and the ``new_address`` argument to + ``mremap()`` as these have the potential to alias with existing + user addresses. + + NOTE: This behaviour changed in v5.6 and so some earlier kernels may + incorrectly accept valid tagged pointers for the ``brk()``, + ``mmap()`` and ``mremap()`` system calls. + + - The ``range.start``, ``start`` and ``dst`` arguments to the + ``UFFDIO_*`` ``ioctl()``s used on a file descriptor obtained from + ``userfaultfd()``, as fault addresses subsequently obtained by reading + the file descriptor will be untagged, which may otherwise confuse + tag-unaware programs. + + NOTE: This behaviour changed in v5.14 and so some earlier kernels may + incorrectly accept valid tagged pointers for this system call. 2. User addresses accessed by the kernel (e.g. ``write()``). This ABI relaxation is disabled by default and the application thread needs to --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c~userfaultfd-do-not-untag-user-pointers +++ a/fs/userfaultfd.c @@ -1236,23 +1236,21 @@ static __always_inline void wake_userfau } static __always_inline int validate_range(struct mm_struct *mm, - __u64 *start, __u64 len) + __u64 start, __u64 len) { __u64 task_size = mm->task_size; - *start = untagged_addr(*start); - - if (*start & ~PAGE_MASK) + if (start & ~PAGE_MASK) return -EINVAL; if (len & ~PAGE_MASK) return -EINVAL; if (!len) return -EINVAL; - if (*start < mmap_min_addr) + if (start < mmap_min_addr) return -EINVAL; - if (*start >= task_size) + if (start >= task_size) return -EINVAL; - if (len > task_size - *start) + if (len > task_size - start) return -EINVAL; return 0; } @@ -1316,7 +1314,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_register(struct u vm_flags |= VM_UFFD_MINOR; } - ret = validate_range(mm, &uffdio_register.range.start, + ret = validate_range(mm, uffdio_register.range.start, uffdio_register.range.len); if (ret) goto out; @@ -1522,7 +1520,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_unregister(struct if (copy_from_user(&uffdio_unregister, buf, sizeof(uffdio_unregister))) goto out; - ret = validate_range(mm, &uffdio_unregister.start, + ret = validate_range(mm, uffdio_unregister.start, uffdio_unregister.len); if (ret) goto out; @@ -1671,7 +1669,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_wake(struct userf if (copy_from_user(&uffdio_wake, buf, sizeof(uffdio_wake))) goto out; - ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, &uffdio_wake.start, uffdio_wake.len); + ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, uffdio_wake.start, uffdio_wake.len); if (ret) goto out; @@ -1711,7 +1709,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_copy(struct userf sizeof(uffdio_copy)-sizeof(__s64))) goto out; - ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, &uffdio_copy.dst, uffdio_copy.len); + ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, uffdio_copy.dst, uffdio_copy.len); if (ret) goto out; /* @@ -1768,7 +1766,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_zeropage(struct u sizeof(uffdio_zeropage)-sizeof(__s64))) goto out; - ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, &uffdio_zeropage.range.start, + ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, uffdio_zeropage.range.start, uffdio_zeropage.range.len); if (ret) goto out; @@ -1818,7 +1816,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_writeprotect(stru sizeof(struct uffdio_writeprotect))) return -EFAULT; - ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, &uffdio_wp.range.start, + ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, uffdio_wp.range.start, uffdio_wp.range.len); if (ret) return ret; @@ -1866,7 +1864,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_continue(struct u sizeof(uffdio_continue) - (sizeof(__s64)))) goto out; - ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, &uffdio_continue.range.start, + ret = validate_range(ctx->mm, uffdio_continue.range.start, uffdio_continue.range.len); if (ret) goto out;