The patch titled Subject: userfaultfd: do not untag user pointers has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was userfaultfd-do-not-untag-user-pointers.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------ From: Peter Collingbourne pcc@google.com 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/I761aa9f0344454c482b83fcfcce547db0a... Fixes: 63f0c6037965 ("arm64: Introduce prctl() options to control the tagged user addresses ABI") Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne pcc@google.com Reviewed-by: Andrey Konovalov andreyknvl@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas catalin.marinas@arm.com Cc: Alistair Delva adelva@google.com Cc: Andrea Arcangeli aarcange@redhat.com Cc: Dave Martin Dave.Martin@arm.com Cc: Evgenii Stepanov eugenis@google.com Cc: Lokesh Gidra lokeshgidra@google.com Cc: Mitch Phillips mitchp@google.com Cc: Vincenzo Frascino vincenzo.frascino@arm.com Cc: Will Deacon will@kernel.org Cc: William McVicker willmcvicker@google.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org [5.4] Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org ---
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; _
Patches currently in -mm which might be from pcc@google.com are