linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com>
To: Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@quicinc.com>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
	<sjpark@amazon.de>, <sieberf@amazon.com>, <shakeelb@google.com>,
	<dhowells@redhat.com>, <willy@infradead.org>, <mhocko@suse.com>,
	<vbabka@suse.cz>, <david@redhat.com>, <minchan@kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix use-after free of page_ext after race with memory-offline
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:41:20 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220718061120.GA8922@hu-pkondeti-hyd.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1657810063-28938-1-git-send-email-quic_charante@quicinc.com>

Hi Charan,

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 08:17:43PM +0530, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
> The below is one path where race between page_ext and  offline of the
> respective memory blocks will cause use-after-free on the access of
> page_ext structure.
> 
> process1		              process2
> ---------                             ---------
> a)doing /proc/page_owner           doing memory offline
> 			           through offline_pages.
> 
> b)PageBuddy check is failed
> thus proceed to get the
> page_owner information
> through page_ext access.
> page_ext = lookup_page_ext(page);
> 
> 				    migrate_pages();
> 				    .................
> 				Since all pages are successfully
> 				migrated as part of the offline
> 				operation,send MEM_OFFLINE notification
> 				where for page_ext it calls:
> 				offline_page_ext()-->
> 				__free_page_ext()-->
> 				   free_page_ext()-->
> 				     vfree(ms->page_ext)
> 			           mem_section->page_ext = NULL
> 
> c) Check for the PAGE_EXT flags
> in the page_ext->flags access
> results into the use-after-free(leading
> to the translation faults).
> 
> As mentioned above, there is really no synchronization between page_ext
> access and its freeing in the memory_offline.
> 
> The memory offline steps(roughly) on a memory block is as below:
> 1) Isolate all the pages
> 2) while(1)
>   try free the pages to buddy.(->free_list[MIGRATE_ISOLATE])
> 3) delete the pages from this buddy list.
> 4) Then free page_ext.(Note: The struct page is still alive as it is
> freed only during hot remove of the memory which frees the memmap, which
> steps the user might not perform).
> 
> This design leads to the state where struct page is alive but the struct
> page_ext is freed, where the later is ideally part of the former which
> just representing the page_flags. This seems to be a wrong design where
> 'struct page' as a whole is not accessible(Thanks to Minchan for
> pointing this out).
> 
> The above mentioned race is just one example __but the problem persists
> in the other paths too involving page_ext->flags access(eg:
> page_is_idle())__. Since offline waits till the last reference on the
> page goes down i.e. any path that took the refcount on the page can make
> the memory offline operation to wait. Eg: In the migrate_pages()
> operation, we do take the extra refcount on the pages that are under
> migration and then we do copy page_owner by accessing page_ext. For
> 
> Fix those paths where offline races with page_ext access by maintaining
> synchronization with rcu lock.
> 
> Thanks to David Hildenbrand for his views/suggestions on the initial
> discussion[1].
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/59edde13-4167-8550-86f0-11fc67882107@quicinc.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@quicinc.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/page_ext.h  | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/page_idle.h | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>  mm/page_ext.c             |  3 ++-
>  mm/page_owner.c           | 18 +++++++++++++++---
>  mm/page_table_check.c     | 10 +++++++---
>  5 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/page_ext.h b/include/linux/page_ext.h
> index fabb2e1..df5d353 100644
> --- a/include/linux/page_ext.h
> +++ b/include/linux/page_ext.h
> @@ -64,6 +64,25 @@ static inline struct page_ext *page_ext_next(struct page_ext *curr)
>  	return next;
>  }
>  
> +static inline struct page_ext *get_page_ext(struct page *page)
> +{
> +	struct page_ext *page_ext;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	page_ext = lookup_page_ext(page);
> +	if (!page_ext) {
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +		return NULL;
> +	}
> +
> +	return page_ext;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void put_page_ext(void)
> +{
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +}
> +
Would it be a harm if we make lookup_page_ext() completely a private function?
Or is there any codepath that have the benefit of calling lookup_page_ext()
without going through get_page_ext()? If that is the case, we should add
RCU lockdep check inside lookup_page_ext() to make sure that this function is
called with RCUs.

Thanks,
Pavan


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-07-18  6:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-14 14:47 Charan Teja Kalla
2022-07-15  1:04 ` Andrew Morton
2022-07-15 12:32   ` Charan Teja Kalla
2022-07-18  6:11 ` Pavan Kondeti [this message]
2022-07-18 13:15   ` Charan Teja Kalla
2022-07-18 11:50 ` Michal Hocko
2022-07-18 13:58   ` Charan Teja Kalla
2022-07-18 14:54     ` Michal Hocko
2022-07-19 15:12       ` Charan Teja Kalla
2022-07-19 15:43         ` Michal Hocko
2022-07-19 15:54           ` David Hildenbrand
2022-07-20 15:08           ` Charan Teja Kalla
2022-07-20 15:22             ` Michal Hocko
2022-07-20  8:21         ` Pavan Kondeti
2022-07-20  9:10           ` Michal Hocko
2022-07-20 10:43             ` Charan Teja Kalla
2022-07-20 11:13               ` Michal Hocko
2022-07-19 15:19       ` David Hildenbrand
2022-07-19 15:37         ` Michal Hocko
2022-07-19 15:50           ` David Hildenbrand

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20220718061120.GA8922@hu-pkondeti-hyd.qualcomm.com \
    --to=quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
    --cc=quic_charante@quicinc.com \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=sieberf@amazon.com \
    --cc=sjpark@amazon.de \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox