On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 12:57 AM Peter Collingbourne pcc@google.com wrote:
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").
[1] https://source.android.com/devices/tech/debug/tagged-pointers [2] tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c
Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne pcc@google.com Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I761aa9f0344454c482b83fcfcce547db0a... Fixes: 63f0c6037965 ("arm64: Introduce prctl() options to control the tagged user addresses ABI") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4
Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst | 25 +++++++++++++++------- fs/userfaultfd.c | 22 +++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst b/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst index 459e6b66ff68..737f9d8565a2 100644 --- a/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst +++ b/Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst @@ -45,14 +45,23 @@ how the user addresses are used by the kernel:
- 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 existinguser addresses.NOTE: This behaviour changed in v5.6 and so some earlier kernels mayincorrectly accept valid tagged pointers for the ``brk()``,``mmap()`` and ``mremap()`` system calls.
- The ``range.start`` argument to the ``UFFDIO_REGISTER`` ``ioctl()``
used on a file descriptor obtained from ``userfaultfd()``, asfault addresses subsequently obtained by reading the file descriptorwill be untagged, which may otherwise confuse tag-unaware programs.NOTE: This behaviour changed in v5.14 and so some earlier kernels mayincorrectly accept valid tagged pointers for this system call.
- User addresses accessed by the kernel (e.g. ``write()``). This ABI relaxation is disabled by default and the application thread needs to
diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c index dd7a6c62b56f..7613efe002c1 100644 --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c @@ -1236,23 +1236,21 @@ static __always_inline void wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, }
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;} @@ -1313,7 +1311,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_register(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, 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;@@ -1519,7 +1517,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_unregister(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, 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;@@ -1668,7 +1666,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_wake(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, 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;@@ -1708,7 +1706,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_copy(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, 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; /*@@ -1765,7 +1763,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_zeropage(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, 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;-- 2.32.0.93.g670b81a890-goog
Reviewed-by: Andrey Konovalov andreyknvl@gmail.com