Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/mincore: make mincore() more conservative
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2019-03-06 23:13:55
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:44:18 +0100 Vlastimil Babka [off-list ref] wrote:
From: Jiri Kosina <redacted> The semantics of what mincore() considers to be resident is not completely clear, but Linux has always (since 2.3.52, which is when mincore() was initially done) treated it as "page is available in page cache". That's potentially a problem, as that [in]directly exposes meta-information about pagecache / memory mapping state even about memory not strictly belonging to the process executing the syscall, opening possibilities for sidechannel attacks. Change the semantics of mincore() so that it only reveals pagecache information for non-anonymous mappings that belog to files that the calling process could (if it tried to) successfully open for writing.
"for writing" comes as a bit of a surprise. Why not for reading? Could we please explain the reasoning in the changelog and in the (presently absent) comments which describe can_do_mincore()?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -189,8 +197,13 @@ static long do_mincore(unsigned long addr, unsigned long pages, unsigned char *v vma = find_vma(current->mm, addr); if (!vma || addr < vma->vm_start) return -ENOMEM; - mincore_walk.mm = vma->vm_mm; end = min(vma->vm_end, addr + (pages << PAGE_SHIFT)); + if (!can_do_mincore(vma)) { + unsigned long pages = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
I'm not sure this is correct in all cases. If addr = 4095 vma->vm_end = 4096 pages = 1000 then `end' is 4096 and `(end - addr) << PAGE_SHIFT' is zero, but it should have been 1. Please check? A mincore test suite in tools/testing/selftests would be useful, methinks. To exercise such corner cases, check for future breakage, etc.
+ memset(vec, 1, pages); + return pages; + } + mincore_walk.mm = vma->vm_mm; err = walk_page_range(addr, end, &mincore_walk); if (err < 0) return err;