* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Split critical region in remap_file_pages() and invoke LSMs in between
2024-10-18 16:14 [PATCH v2] mm: Split critical region in remap_file_pages() and invoke LSMs in between Roberto Sassu
@ 2024-10-18 16:48 ` Liam R. Howlett
2024-10-18 19:04 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-10-19 15:34 ` Paul Moore
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Liam R. Howlett @ 2024-10-18 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roberto Sassu
Cc: akpm, lorenzo.stoakes, vbabka, jannh, linux-mm, linux-kernel,
ebpqwerty472123, paul, zohar, dmitry.kasatkin, eric.snowberg,
jmorris, serge, linux-integrity, linux-security-module, bpf,
linux-fsdevel, Kirill A. Shutemov, stable,
syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930, Roberto Sassu
* Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> [241018 12:15]:
> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
>
> Commit ea7e2d5e49c0 ("mm: call the security_mmap_file() LSM hook in
> remap_file_pages()") fixed a security issue, it added an LSM check when
> trying to remap file pages, so that LSMs have the opportunity to evaluate
> such action like for other memory operations such as mmap() and mprotect().
>
> However, that commit called security_mmap_file() inside the mmap_lock lock,
> while the other calls do it before taking the lock, after commit
> 8b3ec6814c83 ("take security_mmap_file() outside of ->mmap_sem").
>
> This caused lock inversion issue with IMA which was taking the mmap_lock
> and i_mutex lock in the opposite way when the remap_file_pages() system
> call was called.
>
> Solve the issue by splitting the critical region in remap_file_pages() in
> two regions: the first takes a read lock of mmap_lock, retrieves the VMA
> and the file descriptor associated, and calculates the 'prot' and 'flags'
> variables; the second takes a write lock on mmap_lock, checks that the VMA
> flags and the VMA file descriptor are the same as the ones obtained in the
> first critical region (otherwise the system call fails), and calls
> do_mmap().
>
> In between, after releasing the read lock and before taking the write lock,
> call security_mmap_file(), and solve the lock inversion issue.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v6.12-rcx
> Fixes: ea7e2d5e49c0 ("mm: call the security_mmap_file() LSM hook in remap_file_pages()")
> Reported-by: syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/66f7b10e.050a0220.46d20.0036.GAE@google.com/
> Reviewed-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
> Tested-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> Tested-by: syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
You really need to be in that list of people :)
Please add your own signed-off-by.
Besides the missing SOB, it looks good.
Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@Oracle.com>
> ---
> mm/mmap.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> index 9c0fb43064b5..f731dd69e162 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -1640,6 +1640,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(remap_file_pages, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, size,
> unsigned long populate = 0;
> unsigned long ret = -EINVAL;
> struct file *file;
> + vm_flags_t vm_flags;
>
> pr_warn_once("%s (%d) uses deprecated remap_file_pages() syscall. See Documentation/mm/remap_file_pages.rst.\n",
> current->comm, current->pid);
> @@ -1656,12 +1657,60 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(remap_file_pages, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, size,
> if (pgoff + (size >> PAGE_SHIFT) < pgoff)
> return ret;
>
> - if (mmap_write_lock_killable(mm))
> + if (mmap_read_lock_killable(mm))
> return -EINTR;
>
> + /*
> + * Look up VMA under read lock first so we can perform the security
> + * without holding locks (which can be problematic). We reacquire a
> + * write lock later and check nothing changed underneath us.
> + */
> vma = vma_lookup(mm, start);
>
> - if (!vma || !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED))
> + if (!vma || !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) {
> + mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_READ ? PROT_READ : 0;
> + prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE ? PROT_WRITE : 0;
> + prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_EXEC ? PROT_EXEC : 0;
> +
> + flags &= MAP_NONBLOCK;
> + flags |= MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED | MAP_POPULATE;
> + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)
> + flags |= MAP_LOCKED;
> +
> + /* Save vm_flags used to calculate prot and flags, and recheck later. */
> + vm_flags = vma->vm_flags;
> + file = get_file(vma->vm_file);
> +
> + mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> +
> + /* Call outside mmap_lock to be consistent with other callers. */
> + ret = security_mmap_file(file, prot, flags);
> + if (ret) {
> + fput(file);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* OK security check passed, take write lock + let it rip. */
> + if (mmap_write_lock_killable(mm)) {
> + fput(file);
> + return -EINTR;
> + }
> +
> + vma = vma_lookup(mm, start);
> +
> + if (!vma)
> + goto out;
> +
> + /* Make sure things didn't change under us. */
> + if (vma->vm_flags != vm_flags)
> + goto out;
> + if (vma->vm_file != file)
> goto out;
>
> if (start + size > vma->vm_end) {
> @@ -1689,25 +1738,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(remap_file_pages, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, size,
> goto out;
> }
>
> - prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_READ ? PROT_READ : 0;
> - prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE ? PROT_WRITE : 0;
> - prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_EXEC ? PROT_EXEC : 0;
> -
> - flags &= MAP_NONBLOCK;
> - flags |= MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED | MAP_POPULATE;
> - if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)
> - flags |= MAP_LOCKED;
> -
> - file = get_file(vma->vm_file);
> - ret = security_mmap_file(vma->vm_file, prot, flags);
> - if (ret)
> - goto out_fput;
> ret = do_mmap(vma->vm_file, start, size,
> prot, flags, 0, pgoff, &populate, NULL);
> -out_fput:
> - fput(file);
> out:
> mmap_write_unlock(mm);
> + fput(file);
> if (populate)
> mm_populate(ret, populate);
> if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(ret))
> --
> 2.34.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Split critical region in remap_file_pages() and invoke LSMs in between
2024-10-18 16:14 [PATCH v2] mm: Split critical region in remap_file_pages() and invoke LSMs in between Roberto Sassu
2024-10-18 16:48 ` Liam R. Howlett
@ 2024-10-18 19:04 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-10-19 15:34 ` Paul Moore
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2024-10-18 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roberto Sassu, akpm, Liam.Howlett, lorenzo.stoakes, vbabka, jannh
Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel, ebpqwerty472123, paul, zohar,
dmitry.kasatkin, eric.snowberg, jmorris, serge, linux-integrity,
linux-security-module, bpf, linux-fsdevel, Kirill A. Shutemov,
stable, syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930, Roberto Sassu
On Fri Oct 18, 2024 at 7:14 PM EEST, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
>
> Commit ea7e2d5e49c0 ("mm: call the security_mmap_file() LSM hook in
> remap_file_pages()") fixed a security issue, it added an LSM check when
> trying to remap file pages, so that LSMs have the opportunity to evaluate
> such action like for other memory operations such as mmap() and mprotect().
>
> However, that commit called security_mmap_file() inside the mmap_lock lock,
> while the other calls do it before taking the lock, after commit
> 8b3ec6814c83 ("take security_mmap_file() outside of ->mmap_sem").
>
> This caused lock inversion issue with IMA which was taking the mmap_lock
> and i_mutex lock in the opposite way when the remap_file_pages() system
> call was called.
>
> Solve the issue by splitting the critical region in remap_file_pages() in
> two regions: the first takes a read lock of mmap_lock, retrieves the VMA
> and the file descriptor associated, and calculates the 'prot' and 'flags'
> variables; the second takes a write lock on mmap_lock, checks that the VMA
> flags and the VMA file descriptor are the same as the ones obtained in the
> first critical region (otherwise the system call fails), and calls
> do_mmap().
>
> In between, after releasing the read lock and before taking the write lock,
> call security_mmap_file(), and solve the lock inversion issue.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v6.12-rcx
> Fixes: ea7e2d5e49c0 ("mm: call the security_mmap_file() LSM hook in remap_file_pages()")
> Reported-by: syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/66f7b10e.050a0220.46d20.0036.GAE@google.com/
> Reviewed-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
> Tested-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> Tested-by: syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> mm/mmap.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> index 9c0fb43064b5..f731dd69e162 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -1640,6 +1640,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(remap_file_pages, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, size,
> unsigned long populate = 0;
> unsigned long ret = -EINVAL;
> struct file *file;
> + vm_flags_t vm_flags;
>
> pr_warn_once("%s (%d) uses deprecated remap_file_pages() syscall. See Documentation/mm/remap_file_pages.rst.\n",
> current->comm, current->pid);
> @@ -1656,12 +1657,60 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(remap_file_pages, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, size,
> if (pgoff + (size >> PAGE_SHIFT) < pgoff)
> return ret;
>
> - if (mmap_write_lock_killable(mm))
> + if (mmap_read_lock_killable(mm))
> return -EINTR;
>
> + /*
> + * Look up VMA under read lock first so we can perform the security
> + * without holding locks (which can be problematic). We reacquire a
> + * write lock later and check nothing changed underneath us.
> + */
> vma = vma_lookup(mm, start);
>
> - if (!vma || !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED))
> + if (!vma || !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) {
> + mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_READ ? PROT_READ : 0;
> + prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE ? PROT_WRITE : 0;
> + prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_EXEC ? PROT_EXEC : 0;
Not an actual review comment but we don't have a conversion macro and/or
inline for this, do we (and opposite direction)?
> +
> + flags &= MAP_NONBLOCK;
> + flags |= MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED | MAP_POPULATE;
> + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)
> + flags |= MAP_LOCKED;
> +
> + /* Save vm_flags used to calculate prot and flags, and recheck later. */
> + vm_flags = vma->vm_flags;
> + file = get_file(vma->vm_file);
> +
> + mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> +
> + /* Call outside mmap_lock to be consistent with other callers. */
> + ret = security_mmap_file(file, prot, flags);
> + if (ret) {
> + fput(file);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* OK security check passed, take write lock + let it rip. */
> + if (mmap_write_lock_killable(mm)) {
> + fput(file);
> + return -EINTR;
> + }
> +
> + vma = vma_lookup(mm, start);
> +
> + if (!vma)
> + goto out;
> +
> + /* Make sure things didn't change under us. */
> + if (vma->vm_flags != vm_flags)
> + goto out;
> + if (vma->vm_file != file)
> goto out;
>
> if (start + size > vma->vm_end) {
> @@ -1689,25 +1738,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(remap_file_pages, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, size,
> goto out;
> }
>
> - prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_READ ? PROT_READ : 0;
> - prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE ? PROT_WRITE : 0;
> - prot |= vma->vm_flags & VM_EXEC ? PROT_EXEC : 0;
> -
> - flags &= MAP_NONBLOCK;
> - flags |= MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED | MAP_POPULATE;
> - if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)
> - flags |= MAP_LOCKED;
> -
> - file = get_file(vma->vm_file);
> - ret = security_mmap_file(vma->vm_file, prot, flags);
> - if (ret)
> - goto out_fput;
> ret = do_mmap(vma->vm_file, start, size,
> prot, flags, 0, pgoff, &populate, NULL);
> -out_fput:
> - fput(file);
> out:
> mmap_write_unlock(mm);
> + fput(file);
> if (populate)
> mm_populate(ret, populate);
> if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(ret))
BR, Jarkko
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Split critical region in remap_file_pages() and invoke LSMs in between
2024-10-18 16:14 [PATCH v2] mm: Split critical region in remap_file_pages() and invoke LSMs in between Roberto Sassu
2024-10-18 16:48 ` Liam R. Howlett
2024-10-18 19:04 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
@ 2024-10-19 15:34 ` Paul Moore
2024-10-21 7:59 ` Roberto Sassu
2024-10-22 3:06 ` Andrew Morton
2 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Paul Moore @ 2024-10-19 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kirill A. Shutemov, Roberto Sassu, akpm
Cc: Liam.Howlett, lorenzo.stoakes, vbabka, jannh, linux-mm,
linux-kernel, ebpqwerty472123, zohar, dmitry.kasatkin,
eric.snowberg, jmorris, serge, linux-integrity,
linux-security-module, bpf, linux-fsdevel, stable,
syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930, Roberto Sassu
On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 12:15 PM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
>
> Commit ea7e2d5e49c0 ("mm: call the security_mmap_file() LSM hook in
> remap_file_pages()") fixed a security issue, it added an LSM check when
> trying to remap file pages, so that LSMs have the opportunity to evaluate
> such action like for other memory operations such as mmap() and mprotect().
>
> However, that commit called security_mmap_file() inside the mmap_lock lock,
> while the other calls do it before taking the lock, after commit
> 8b3ec6814c83 ("take security_mmap_file() outside of ->mmap_sem").
>
> This caused lock inversion issue with IMA which was taking the mmap_lock
> and i_mutex lock in the opposite way when the remap_file_pages() system
> call was called.
>
> Solve the issue by splitting the critical region in remap_file_pages() in
> two regions: the first takes a read lock of mmap_lock, retrieves the VMA
> and the file descriptor associated, and calculates the 'prot' and 'flags'
> variables; the second takes a write lock on mmap_lock, checks that the VMA
> flags and the VMA file descriptor are the same as the ones obtained in the
> first critical region (otherwise the system call fails), and calls
> do_mmap().
>
> In between, after releasing the read lock and before taking the write lock,
> call security_mmap_file(), and solve the lock inversion issue.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v6.12-rcx
> Fixes: ea7e2d5e49c0 ("mm: call the security_mmap_file() LSM hook in remap_file_pages()")
> Reported-by: syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/66f7b10e.050a0220.46d20.0036.GAE@google.com/
> Reviewed-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
> Tested-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> Tested-by: syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> mm/mmap.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
Thanks for working on this Roberto, Kirill, and everyone else who had
a hand in reviewing and testing.
Reviewed-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Andrew, I see you're pulling this into the MM/hotfixes-unstable
branch, do you also plan to send this up to Linus soon/next-week? If
so, great, if not let me know and I can send it up via the LSM tree.
We need to get clarity around Roberto's sign-off, but I think that is
more of an administrative mistake rather than an intentional omission
:)
--
paul-moore.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Split critical region in remap_file_pages() and invoke LSMs in between
2024-10-19 15:34 ` Paul Moore
@ 2024-10-21 7:59 ` Roberto Sassu
2024-10-22 3:06 ` Andrew Morton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Roberto Sassu @ 2024-10-21 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Moore, Kirill A. Shutemov, akpm
Cc: Liam.Howlett, lorenzo.stoakes, vbabka, jannh, linux-mm,
linux-kernel, ebpqwerty472123, zohar, dmitry.kasatkin,
eric.snowberg, jmorris, serge, linux-integrity,
linux-security-module, bpf, linux-fsdevel, stable,
syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930, Roberto Sassu
On Sat, 2024-10-19 at 11:34 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 12:15 PM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > Commit ea7e2d5e49c0 ("mm: call the security_mmap_file() LSM hook in
> > remap_file_pages()") fixed a security issue, it added an LSM check when
> > trying to remap file pages, so that LSMs have the opportunity to evaluate
> > such action like for other memory operations such as mmap() and mprotect().
> >
> > However, that commit called security_mmap_file() inside the mmap_lock lock,
> > while the other calls do it before taking the lock, after commit
> > 8b3ec6814c83 ("take security_mmap_file() outside of ->mmap_sem").
> >
> > This caused lock inversion issue with IMA which was taking the mmap_lock
> > and i_mutex lock in the opposite way when the remap_file_pages() system
> > call was called.
> >
> > Solve the issue by splitting the critical region in remap_file_pages() in
> > two regions: the first takes a read lock of mmap_lock, retrieves the VMA
> > and the file descriptor associated, and calculates the 'prot' and 'flags'
> > variables; the second takes a write lock on mmap_lock, checks that the VMA
> > flags and the VMA file descriptor are the same as the ones obtained in the
> > first critical region (otherwise the system call fails), and calls
> > do_mmap().
> >
> > In between, after releasing the read lock and before taking the write lock,
> > call security_mmap_file(), and solve the lock inversion issue.
> >
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v6.12-rcx
> > Fixes: ea7e2d5e49c0 ("mm: call the security_mmap_file() LSM hook in remap_file_pages()")
> > Reported-by: syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/66f7b10e.050a0220.46d20.0036.GAE@google.com/
> > Reviewed-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
> > Tested-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > Tested-by: syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > mm/mmap.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> Thanks for working on this Roberto, Kirill, and everyone else who had
> a hand in reviewing and testing.
Welcome!
> Reviewed-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
>
> Andrew, I see you're pulling this into the MM/hotfixes-unstable
> branch, do you also plan to send this up to Linus soon/next-week? If
> so, great, if not let me know and I can send it up via the LSM tree.
>
> We need to get clarity around Roberto's sign-off, but I think that is
> more of an administrative mistake rather than an intentional omission
> :)
Ops, I just thought that I would not need to add it, since I'm not the
author of the patch. Please add my:
Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Roberto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Split critical region in remap_file_pages() and invoke LSMs in between
2024-10-19 15:34 ` Paul Moore
2024-10-21 7:59 ` Roberto Sassu
@ 2024-10-22 3:06 ` Andrew Morton
2024-10-22 16:27 ` Paul Moore
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2024-10-22 3:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Moore
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov, Roberto Sassu, Liam.Howlett, lorenzo.stoakes,
vbabka, jannh, linux-mm, linux-kernel, ebpqwerty472123, zohar,
dmitry.kasatkin, eric.snowberg, jmorris, serge, linux-integrity,
linux-security-module, bpf, linux-fsdevel, stable,
syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930, Roberto Sassu
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:34:08 -0400 Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > mm/mmap.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> Thanks for working on this Roberto, Kirill, and everyone else who had
> a hand in reviewing and testing.
>
> Reviewed-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
>
> Andrew, I see you're pulling this into the MM/hotfixes-unstable
> branch, do you also plan to send this up to Linus soon/next-week? If
> so, great, if not let me know and I can send it up via the LSM tree.
In the normal course of things I'd send it upstream next week, but I
can include it in this week's batch if we know that -next testing is
hurting from it?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Split critical region in remap_file_pages() and invoke LSMs in between
2024-10-22 3:06 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2024-10-22 16:27 ` Paul Moore
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Paul Moore @ 2024-10-22 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov, Roberto Sassu, Liam.Howlett, lorenzo.stoakes,
vbabka, jannh, linux-mm, linux-kernel, ebpqwerty472123, zohar,
dmitry.kasatkin, eric.snowberg, jmorris, serge, linux-integrity,
linux-security-module, bpf, linux-fsdevel, stable,
syzbot+1cd571a672400ef3a930, Roberto Sassu
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 11:06 PM Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:34:08 -0400 Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>
> > > mm/mmap.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >
> > Thanks for working on this Roberto, Kirill, and everyone else who had
> > a hand in reviewing and testing.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> >
> > Andrew, I see you're pulling this into the MM/hotfixes-unstable
> > branch, do you also plan to send this up to Linus soon/next-week? If
> > so, great, if not let me know and I can send it up via the LSM tree.
>
> In the normal course of things I'd send it upstream next week ...
That sounds good to me, I just wanted to make sure there was a path
forward to get into Linus' tree.
> ... but I
> can include it in this week's batch if we know that -next testing is
> hurting from it?
I don't believe so, I think this was just a syzbot gotcha. From what
I understand remap_file_pages(2) isn't used much anymore.
--
paul-moore.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread