Reviewed-by: Axel Rasmussen axelrasmussen@google.com
Thanks for the fix, Peter!
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 11:59 AM David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com wrote:
On 06.04.24 01:19, peterx@redhat.com wrote:
From: Peter Xu peterx@redhat.com
After UFFDIO_POISON, there can be two kinds of hugetlb pte markers, either the POISON one or UFFD_WP one.
Allow change protection to run on a poisoned marker just like !hugetlb cases, ignoring the marker irrelevant of the permission.
Here the two bits are mutual exclusive. For example, when install a poisoned entry it must not be UFFD_WP already (by checking pte_none() before such install). And it also means if UFFD_WP is set there must have no POISON bit set. It makes sense because UFFD_WP is a bit to reflect permission, and permissions do not apply if the pte is poisoned and destined to sigbus.
So here we simply check uffd_wp bit set first, do nothing otherwise.
Attach the Fixes to UFFDIO_POISON work, as before that it should not be possible to have poison entry for hugetlb (e.g., hugetlb doesn't do swap, so no chance of swapin errors).
Cc: Axel Rasmussen axelrasmussen@google.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: linux-stable stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.6+ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/000000000000920d5e0615602dd1@google.com Reported-by: syzbot+b07c8ac8eee3d4d8440f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Fixes: fc71884a5f59 ("mm: userfaultfd: add new UFFDIO_POISON ioctl") Signed-off-by: Peter Xu peterx@redhat.com
mm/hugetlb.c | 10 +++++++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c index 8267e221ca5d..ba7162441adf 100644 --- a/mm/hugetlb.c +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c @@ -6960,9 +6960,13 @@ long hugetlb_change_protection(struct vm_area_struct *vma, if (!pte_same(pte, newpte)) set_huge_pte_at(mm, address, ptep, newpte, psize); } else if (unlikely(is_pte_marker(pte))) {
/* No other markers apply for now. */WARN_ON_ONCE(!pte_marker_uffd_wp(pte));if (uffd_wp_resolve)
/** Do nothing on a poison marker; page is* corrupted, permissons do not apply. Here* pte_marker_uffd_wp()==true implies !poison* because they're mutual exclusive.*/if (pte_marker_uffd_wp(pte) && uffd_wp_resolve) /* Safe to modify directly (non-present->none). */ huge_pte_clear(mm, address, ptep, psize); } else if (!huge_pte_none(pte)) {Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com
-- Cheers,
David / dhildenb