A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by
Andy [2].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
---
fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 2 +-
mm/memfd.c | 19 -------------------
mm/shmem.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
index 762028994f47..5b54bf893a67 100644
--- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
@@ -558,7 +558,7 @@ static long hugetlbfs_punch_hole(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
inode_lock(inode);
/* protected by i_mutex */
- if (info->seals & F_SEAL_WRITE) {
+ if (info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)) {
inode_unlock(inode);
return -EPERM;
}
diff --git a/mm/memfd.c b/mm/memfd.c
index 63fff5e77114..650e65a46b9c 100644
--- a/mm/memfd.c
+++ b/mm/memfd.c
@@ -201,25 +201,6 @@ static int memfd_add_seals(struct file *file, unsigned int seals)
}
}
- if ((seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE) &&
- !(*file_seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)) {
- /*
- * The FUTURE_WRITE seal also prevents growing and shrinking
- * so we need them to be already set, or requested now.
- */
- int test_seals = (seals | *file_seals) &
- (F_SEAL_GROW | F_SEAL_SHRINK);
-
- if (test_seals != (F_SEAL_GROW | F_SEAL_SHRINK)) {
- error = -EINVAL;
- goto unlock;
- }
-
- spin_lock(&file->f_lock);
- file->f_mode &= ~(FMODE_WRITE | FMODE_PWRITE);
- spin_unlock(&file->f_lock);
- }
-
*file_seals |= seals;
error = 0;
diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
index 32eb29bd72c6..cee9878c87f1 100644
--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -2121,6 +2121,23 @@ int shmem_lock(struct file *file, int lock, struct user_struct *user)
static int shmem_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
+ struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(file_inode(file));
+
+ /*
+ * New PROT_READ and MAP_SHARED mmaps are not allowed when "future
+ * write" seal active.
+ */
+ if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) && (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) &&
+ (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE))
+ return -EPERM;
+
+ /*
+ * Since the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seals allow for a MAP_SHARED read-only
+ * mapping, take care to not allow mprotect to revert protections.
+ */
+ if (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)
+ vma->vm_flags &= ~(VM_MAYWRITE);
+
file_accessed(file);
vma->vm_ops = &shmem_vm_ops;
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGE_PAGECACHE) &&
@@ -2346,8 +2363,9 @@ shmem_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
pgoff_t index = pos >> PAGE_SHIFT;
/* i_mutex is held by caller */
- if (unlikely(info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_GROW))) {
- if (info->seals & F_SEAL_WRITE)
+ if (unlikely(info->seals & (F_SEAL_GROW |
+ F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE))) {
+ if (info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE))
return -EPERM;
if ((info->seals & F_SEAL_GROW) && pos + len > inode->i_size)
return -EPERM;
@@ -2610,7 +2628,7 @@ static long shmem_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset,
DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_ONSTACK(shmem_falloc_waitq);
/* protected by i_mutex */
- if (info->seals & F_SEAL_WRITE) {
+ if (info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)) {
error = -EPERM;
goto out;
}
--
2.19.1.1215.g8438c0b245-goog
Modify the tests for F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE based on the changes
introduced in previous patch.
Also add a test to make sure the reopen issue pointed by Jann Horn [1]
is fixed.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAG48ez1h=v-JYnDw81HaYJzOfrNhwYksxmc2r=cJvdQVgYM+NA@mail.gmail.com/
Cc: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 88 +++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
index 32b207ca7372..c67d32eeb668 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
@@ -54,6 +54,22 @@ static int mfd_assert_new(const char *name, loff_t sz, unsigned int flags)
return fd;
}
+static int mfd_assert_reopen_fd(int fd_in)
+{
+ int r, fd;
+ char path[100];
+
+ sprintf(path, "/proc/self/fd/%d", fd_in);
+
+ fd = open(path, O_RDWR);
+ if (fd < 0) {
+ printf("re-open of existing fd %d failed\n", fd_in);
+ abort();
+ }
+
+ return fd;
+}
+
static void mfd_fail_new(const char *name, unsigned int flags)
{
int r;
@@ -255,6 +271,25 @@ static void mfd_assert_read(int fd)
munmap(p, mfd_def_size);
}
+/* Test that PROT_READ + MAP_SHARED mappings work. */
+static void mfd_assert_read_shared(int fd)
+{
+ void *p;
+
+ /* verify PROT_READ and MAP_SHARED *is* allowed */
+ p = mmap(NULL,
+ mfd_def_size,
+ PROT_READ,
+ MAP_SHARED,
+ fd,
+ 0);
+ if (p == MAP_FAILED) {
+ printf("mmap() failed: %m\n");
+ abort();
+ }
+ munmap(p, mfd_def_size);
+}
+
static void mfd_assert_write(int fd)
{
ssize_t l;
@@ -698,7 +733,7 @@ static void test_seal_write(void)
*/
static void test_seal_future_write(void)
{
- int fd;
+ int fd, fd2;
void *p;
printf("%s SEAL-FUTURE-WRITE\n", memfd_str);
@@ -710,58 +745,23 @@ static void test_seal_future_write(void)
p = mfd_assert_mmap_shared(fd);
mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, 0);
- /* Not adding grow/shrink seals makes the future write
- * seal fail to get added
- */
- mfd_fail_add_seals(fd, F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE);
-
- mfd_assert_add_seals(fd, F_SEAL_GROW);
- mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, F_SEAL_GROW);
-
- /* Should still fail since shrink seal has
- * not yet been added
- */
- mfd_fail_add_seals(fd, F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE);
-
- mfd_assert_add_seals(fd, F_SEAL_SHRINK);
- mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, F_SEAL_GROW |
- F_SEAL_SHRINK);
- /* Now should succeed, also verifies that the seal
- * could be added with an existing writable mmap
- */
mfd_assert_add_seals(fd, F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE);
- mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, F_SEAL_SHRINK |
- F_SEAL_GROW |
- F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE);
+ mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE);
/* read should pass, writes should fail */
mfd_assert_read(fd);
+ mfd_assert_read_shared(fd);
mfd_fail_write(fd);
- munmap(p, mfd_def_size);
- close(fd);
-
- /* Test adding all seals (grow, shrink, future write) at once */
- fd = mfd_assert_new("kern_memfd_seal_future_write2",
- mfd_def_size,
- MFD_CLOEXEC | MFD_ALLOW_SEALING);
-
- p = mfd_assert_mmap_shared(fd);
-
- mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, 0);
- mfd_assert_add_seals(fd, F_SEAL_SHRINK |
- F_SEAL_GROW |
- F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE);
- mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, F_SEAL_SHRINK |
- F_SEAL_GROW |
- F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE);
-
- /* read should pass, writes should fail */
- mfd_assert_read(fd);
- mfd_fail_write(fd);
+ fd2 = mfd_assert_reopen_fd(fd);
+ /* read should pass, writes should still fail */
+ mfd_assert_read(fd2);
+ mfd_assert_read_shared(fd2);
+ mfd_fail_write(fd2);
munmap(p, mfd_def_size);
+ close(fd2);
close(fd);
}
--
2.19.1.1215.g8438c0b245-goog
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
> where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
> behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by
> Andy [2].
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
> Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
> Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")
What tree is that commit in? Can we not just fold this in?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:33:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Joel,
> >
> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
> >>>> where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
> >>>> behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by
> >>>> Andy [2].
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> >>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> >>>>
> >>>> Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
> >>>> Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")
> >>>
> >>> What tree is that commit in? Can we not just fold this in?
> >>
> >> It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history?
> >
> > Well, its in Andrew's mmotm, so its up to him.
> >
> >
>
> Unless mmotm is more magical than I think, the commit hash in your fixed
> tag is already nonsense. mmotm gets rebased all the time, and is only
> barely a git tree.
I wouldn't go so far to call it nonsense. It was a working patch, it just did
things differently. Your help with improving the patch is much appreciated.
I am Ok with whatever Andrew wants to do, if it is better to squash it with
the original, then I can do that and send another patch.
- Joel
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
> > where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
> > behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by
> > Andy [2].
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> >
> > Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
> > Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")
>
> What tree is that commit in? Can we not just fold this in?
It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history?
thanks,
- Joel
Hi Joel,
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
> > > where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
> > > behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by
> > > Andy [2].
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
> > > Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")
> >
> > What tree is that commit in? Can we not just fold this in?
>
> It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history?
Well, its in Andrew's mmotm, so its up to him.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
> On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Joel,
>
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
>>>> where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
>>>> behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by
>>>> Andy [2].
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
>>>> Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")
>>>
>>> What tree is that commit in? Can we not just fold this in?
>>
>> It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history?
>
> Well, its in Andrew's mmotm, so its up to him.
>
>
Unless mmotm is more magical than I think, the commit hash in your fixed tag is already nonsense. mmotm gets rebased all the time, and is only barely a git tree.
> On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:33:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Joel,
>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
>>>>>> where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
>>>>>> behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by
>>>>>> Andy [2].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>>>>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
>>>>>> Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")
>>>>>
>>>>> What tree is that commit in? Can we not just fold this in?
>>>>
>>>> It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history?
>>>
>>> Well, its in Andrew's mmotm, so its up to him.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Unless mmotm is more magical than I think, the commit hash in your fixed
>> tag is already nonsense. mmotm gets rebased all the time, and is only
>> barely a git tree.
>
> I wouldn't go so far to call it nonsense. It was a working patch, it just did
> things differently. Your help with improving the patch is much appreciated.
I’m not saying the patch is nonsense — I’m saying the *hash* may be nonsense. akpm uses a bunch of .patch files and all kinds of crazy scripts, and the mmotm.git tree is not stable at all.
>
> I am Ok with whatever Andrew wants to do, if it is better to squash it with
> the original, then I can do that and send another patch.
>
>
From experience, Andrew will food in fixups on request :)
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:02:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:33:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Joel,
> >>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
> >>>>>> where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
> >>>>>> behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by
> >>>>>> Andy [2].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> >>>>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
> >>>>>> Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What tree is that commit in? Can we not just fold this in?
> >>>>
> >>>> It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history?
> >>>
> >>> Well, its in Andrew's mmotm, so its up to him.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Unless mmotm is more magical than I think, the commit hash in your fixed
> >> tag is already nonsense. mmotm gets rebased all the time, and is only
> >> barely a git tree.
> >
> > I wouldn't go so far to call it nonsense. It was a working patch, it just did
> > things differently. Your help with improving the patch is much appreciated.
>
> I’m not saying the patch is nonsense — I’m saying the *hash* may be
> nonsense. akpm uses a bunch of .patch files and all kinds of crazy scripts,
> and the mmotm.git tree is not stable at all.
>
Oh, ok. Sorry for misunderstanding and thanks for clarification. :-)
> > I am Ok with whatever Andrew wants to do, if it is better to squash it with
> > the original, then I can do that and send another patch.
> >
> >
>
> From experience, Andrew will food in fixups on request :)
Andrew, could you squash this patch into the one titled ("mm: Add an
F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")? That one was already picked up by -next
but I imagine you might have a crazy script as Andy pointed out for exactly
these situations. ;-)
thanks,
- Joel
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:13:35 -0800 Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I am Ok with whatever Andrew wants to do, if it is better to squash it with
> > > the original, then I can do that and send another patch.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > From experience, Andrew will food in fixups on request :)
>
> Andrew, could you squash this patch into the one titled ("mm: Add an
> F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")?
Sure.
I could of course queue them separately but I rarely do so - I don't
think that the intermediate development states are useful in the
infinite-term, and I make them available via additional Link: tags in
the changelog footers anyway.
I think that the magnitude of these patches is such that John Stultz's
Reviewed-by is invalidated, so this series is now in the "unreviewed"
state.
So can we have a re-review please? For convenience, here's the
folded-together [1/1] patch, as it will go to Linus.
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
Subject: mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd
Android uses ashmem for sharing memory regions. We are looking forward to
migrating all usecases of ashmem to memfd so that we can possibly remove
the ashmem driver in the future from staging while also benefiting from
using memfd and contributing to it. Note staging drivers are also not ABI
and generally can be removed at anytime.
One of the main usecases Android has is the ability to create a region and
mmap it as writeable, then add protection against making any "future"
writes while keeping the existing already mmap'ed writeable-region active.
This allows us to implement a usecase where receivers of the shared
memory buffer can get a read-only view, while the sender continues to
write to the buffer. See CursorWindow documentation in Android for more
details:
https://developer.android.com/reference/android/database/CursorWindow
This usecase cannot be implemented with the existing F_SEAL_WRITE seal.
To support the usecase, this patch adds a new F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal
which prevents any future mmap and write syscalls from succeeding while
keeping the existing mmap active. The following program shows the seal
working in action:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <linux/memfd.h>
#include <linux/fcntl.h>
#include <asm/unistd.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE 0x0010
#define REGION_SIZE (5 * 1024 * 1024)
int memfd_create_region(const char *name, size_t size)
{
int ret;
int fd = syscall(__NR_memfd_create, name, MFD_ALLOW_SEALING);
if (fd < 0) return fd;
ret = ftruncate(fd, size);
if (ret < 0) { close(fd); return ret; }
return fd;
}
int main() {
int ret, fd;
void *addr, *addr2, *addr3, *addr1;
ret = memfd_create_region("test_region", REGION_SIZE);
printf("ret=%d\n", ret);
fd = ret;
// Create map
addr = mmap(0, REGION_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
if (addr == MAP_FAILED)
printf("map 0 failed\n");
else
printf("map 0 passed\n");
if ((ret = write(fd, "test", 4)) != 4)
printf("write failed even though no future-write seal "
"(ret=%d errno =%d)\n", ret, errno);
else
printf("write passed\n");
addr1 = mmap(0, REGION_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
if (addr1 == MAP_FAILED)
perror("map 1 prot-write failed even though no seal\n");
else
printf("map 1 prot-write passed as expected\n");
ret = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE |
F_SEAL_GROW |
F_SEAL_SHRINK);
if (ret == -1)
printf("fcntl failed, errno: %d\n", errno);
else
printf("future-write seal now active\n");
if ((ret = write(fd, "test", 4)) != 4)
printf("write failed as expected due to future-write seal\n");
else
printf("write passed (unexpected)\n");
addr2 = mmap(0, REGION_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
if (addr2 == MAP_FAILED)
perror("map 2 prot-write failed as expected due to seal\n");
else
printf("map 2 passed\n");
addr3 = mmap(0, REGION_SIZE, PROT_READ, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
if (addr3 == MAP_FAILED)
perror("map 3 failed\n");
else
printf("map 3 prot-read passed as expected\n");
}
The output of running this program is as follows:
ret=3
map 0 passed
write passed
map 1 prot-write passed as expected
future-write seal now active
write failed as expected due to future-write seal
map 2 prot-write failed as expected due to seal
: Permission denied
map 3 prot-read passed as expected
[[email protected]: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
Cc: John Stultz <[email protected]>
Cc: John Reck <[email protected]>
Cc: Todd Kjos <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
Cc: Al Viro <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Colascione <[email protected]>
Cc: J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
Cc: Khalid Aziz <[email protected]>
Cc: Lei Yang <[email protected]>
Cc: Marc-Andr Lureau <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <[email protected]>
Cc: Minchan Kim <[email protected]>
Cc: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
Cc: Valdis Kletnieks <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Cc: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
---
--- a/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
+++ a/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#define F_SEAL_SHRINK 0x0002 /* prevent file from shrinking */
#define F_SEAL_GROW 0x0004 /* prevent file from growing */
#define F_SEAL_WRITE 0x0008 /* prevent writes */
+#define F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE 0x0010 /* prevent future writes while mapped */
/* (1U << 31) is reserved for signed error codes */
/*
--- a/mm/memfd.c~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
+++ a/mm/memfd.c
@@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ static unsigned int *memfd_file_seals_pt
#define F_ALL_SEALS (F_SEAL_SEAL | \
F_SEAL_SHRINK | \
F_SEAL_GROW | \
- F_SEAL_WRITE)
+ F_SEAL_WRITE | \
+ F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)
static int memfd_add_seals(struct file *file, unsigned int seals)
{
--- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
+++ a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
@@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ static long hugetlbfs_punch_hole(struct
inode_lock(inode);
/* protected by i_mutex */
- if (info->seals & F_SEAL_WRITE) {
+ if (info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)) {
inode_unlock(inode);
return -EPERM;
}
--- a/mm/shmem.c~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
+++ a/mm/shmem.c
@@ -2119,6 +2119,23 @@ out_nomem:
static int shmem_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
+ struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(file_inode(file));
+
+ /*
+ * New PROT_READ and MAP_SHARED mmaps are not allowed when "future
+ * write" seal active.
+ */
+ if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) && (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) &&
+ (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE))
+ return -EPERM;
+
+ /*
+ * Since the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seals allow for a MAP_SHARED read-only
+ * mapping, take care to not allow mprotect to revert protections.
+ */
+ if (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)
+ vma->vm_flags &= ~(VM_MAYWRITE);
+
file_accessed(file);
vma->vm_ops = &shmem_vm_ops;
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGE_PAGECACHE) &&
@@ -2344,8 +2361,9 @@ shmem_write_begin(struct file *file, str
pgoff_t index = pos >> PAGE_SHIFT;
/* i_mutex is held by caller */
- if (unlikely(info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_GROW))) {
- if (info->seals & F_SEAL_WRITE)
+ if (unlikely(info->seals & (F_SEAL_GROW |
+ F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE))) {
+ if (info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE))
return -EPERM;
if ((info->seals & F_SEAL_GROW) && pos + len > inode->i_size)
return -EPERM;
@@ -2608,7 +2626,7 @@ static long shmem_fallocate(struct file
DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_ONSTACK(shmem_falloc_waitq);
/* protected by i_mutex */
- if (info->seals & F_SEAL_WRITE) {
+ if (info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)) {
error = -EPERM;
goto out;
}
_
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:27 PM Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:13:35 -0800 Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I am Ok with whatever Andrew wants to do, if it is better to squash it with
> > > > the original, then I can do that and send another patch.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > From experience, Andrew will food in fixups on request :)
> >
> > Andrew, could you squash this patch into the one titled ("mm: Add an
> > F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")?
>
> Sure.
>
> I could of course queue them separately but I rarely do so - I don't
> think that the intermediate development states are useful in the
> infinite-term, and I make them available via additional Link: tags in
> the changelog footers anyway.
>
> I think that the magnitude of these patches is such that John Stultz's
> Reviewed-by is invalidated, so this series is now in the "unreviewed"
> state.
>
> So can we have a re-review please? For convenience, here's the
> folded-together [1/1] patch, as it will go to Linus.
>
>
> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
> Subject: mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd
>
> Android uses ashmem for sharing memory regions. We are looking forward to
> migrating all usecases of ashmem to memfd so that we can possibly remove
> the ashmem driver in the future from staging while also benefiting from
> using memfd and contributing to it. Note staging drivers are also not ABI
> and generally can be removed at anytime.
>
> One of the main usecases Android has is the ability to create a region and
> mmap it as writeable, then add protection against making any "future"
> writes while keeping the existing already mmap'ed writeable-region active.
> This allows us to implement a usecase where receivers of the shared
> memory buffer can get a read-only view, while the sender continues to
> write to the buffer. See CursorWindow documentation in Android for more
> details:
> https://developer.android.com/reference/android/database/CursorWindow
>
> This usecase cannot be implemented with the existing F_SEAL_WRITE seal.
> To support the usecase, this patch adds a new F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal
> which prevents any future mmap and write syscalls from succeeding while
> keeping the existing mmap active. The following program shows the seal
> working in action:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <errno.h>
> #include <sys/mman.h>
> #include <linux/memfd.h>
> #include <linux/fcntl.h>
> #include <asm/unistd.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #define F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE 0x0010
> #define REGION_SIZE (5 * 1024 * 1024)
>
> int memfd_create_region(const char *name, size_t size)
> {
> int ret;
> int fd = syscall(__NR_memfd_create, name, MFD_ALLOW_SEALING);
> if (fd < 0) return fd;
> ret = ftruncate(fd, size);
> if (ret < 0) { close(fd); return ret; }
> return fd;
> }
>
> int main() {
> int ret, fd;
> void *addr, *addr2, *addr3, *addr1;
> ret = memfd_create_region("test_region", REGION_SIZE);
> printf("ret=%d\n", ret);
> fd = ret;
>
> // Create map
> addr = mmap(0, REGION_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> if (addr == MAP_FAILED)
> printf("map 0 failed\n");
> else
> printf("map 0 passed\n");
>
> if ((ret = write(fd, "test", 4)) != 4)
> printf("write failed even though no future-write seal "
> "(ret=%d errno =%d)\n", ret, errno);
> else
> printf("write passed\n");
>
> addr1 = mmap(0, REGION_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> if (addr1 == MAP_FAILED)
> perror("map 1 prot-write failed even though no seal\n");
> else
> printf("map 1 prot-write passed as expected\n");
>
> ret = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE |
> F_SEAL_GROW |
> F_SEAL_SHRINK);
> if (ret == -1)
> printf("fcntl failed, errno: %d\n", errno);
> else
> printf("future-write seal now active\n");
>
> if ((ret = write(fd, "test", 4)) != 4)
> printf("write failed as expected due to future-write seal\n");
> else
> printf("write passed (unexpected)\n");
>
> addr2 = mmap(0, REGION_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> if (addr2 == MAP_FAILED)
> perror("map 2 prot-write failed as expected due to seal\n");
> else
> printf("map 2 passed\n");
>
> addr3 = mmap(0, REGION_SIZE, PROT_READ, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> if (addr3 == MAP_FAILED)
> perror("map 3 failed\n");
> else
> printf("map 3 prot-read passed as expected\n");
> }
>
> The output of running this program is as follows:
> ret=3
> map 0 passed
> write passed
> map 1 prot-write passed as expected
> future-write seal now active
> write failed as expected due to future-write seal
> map 2 prot-write failed as expected due to seal
> : Permission denied
> map 3 prot-read passed as expected
>
> [[email protected]: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust]
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
> Cc: John Stultz <[email protected]>
> Cc: John Reck <[email protected]>
> Cc: Todd Kjos <[email protected]>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
> Cc: Al Viro <[email protected]>
> Cc: Daniel Colascione <[email protected]>
> Cc: J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> Cc: Khalid Aziz <[email protected]>
> Cc: Lei Yang <[email protected]>
> Cc: Marc-Andr Lureau <[email protected]>
> Cc: Mike Kravetz <[email protected]>
> Cc: Minchan Kim <[email protected]>
> Cc: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
> Cc: Valdis Kletnieks <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> ---
>
>
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
> +++ a/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
> #define F_SEAL_SHRINK 0x0002 /* prevent file from shrinking */
> #define F_SEAL_GROW 0x0004 /* prevent file from growing */
> #define F_SEAL_WRITE 0x0008 /* prevent writes */
> +#define F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE 0x0010 /* prevent future writes while mapped */
> /* (1U << 31) is reserved for signed error codes */
>
> /*
> --- a/mm/memfd.c~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
> +++ a/mm/memfd.c
> @@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ static unsigned int *memfd_file_seals_pt
> #define F_ALL_SEALS (F_SEAL_SEAL | \
> F_SEAL_SHRINK | \
> F_SEAL_GROW | \
> - F_SEAL_WRITE)
> + F_SEAL_WRITE | \
> + F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)
>
> static int memfd_add_seals(struct file *file, unsigned int seals)
> {
> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
> +++ a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ static long hugetlbfs_punch_hole(struct
> inode_lock(inode);
>
> /* protected by i_mutex */
> - if (info->seals & F_SEAL_WRITE) {
> + if (info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)) {
> inode_unlock(inode);
> return -EPERM;
> }
> --- a/mm/shmem.c~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
> +++ a/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -2119,6 +2119,23 @@ out_nomem:
>
> static int shmem_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> {
> + struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(file_inode(file));
> +
> + /*
> + * New PROT_READ and MAP_SHARED mmaps are not allowed when "future
PROT_WRITE, perhaps?
> + * write" seal active.
> + */
> + if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) && (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) &&
> + (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE))
> + return -EPERM;
> +
> + /*
> + * Since the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seals allow for a MAP_SHARED read-only
> + * mapping, take care to not allow mprotect to revert protections.
> + */
> + if (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)
> + vma->vm_flags &= ~(VM_MAYWRITE);
> +
This might all be clearer as:
if (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE) {
if (vma->vm_flags ...)
return -EPERM;
vma->vm_flags &= ~VM_MAYWRITE;
}
with appropriate comments inserted.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:25:26PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 6:27 PM Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:13:35 -0800 Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I am Ok with whatever Andrew wants to do, if it is better to squash it with
> > > > > the original, then I can do that and send another patch.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > From experience, Andrew will food in fixups on request :)
> > >
> > > Andrew, could you squash this patch into the one titled ("mm: Add an
> > > F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")?
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > I could of course queue them separately but I rarely do so - I don't
> > think that the intermediate development states are useful in the
> > infinite-term, and I make them available via additional Link: tags in
> > the changelog footers anyway.
> >
> > I think that the magnitude of these patches is such that John Stultz's
> > Reviewed-by is invalidated, so this series is now in the "unreviewed"
> > state.
> >
> > So can we have a re-review please? For convenience, here's the
> > folded-together [1/1] patch, as it will go to Linus.
Sure, I removed the old tags and also provide an updated patch below inline.
> > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd
> >
> > Android uses ashmem for sharing memory regions. We are looking forward to
> > migrating all usecases of ashmem to memfd so that we can possibly remove
> > the ashmem driver in the future from staging while also benefiting from
> > using memfd and contributing to it. Note staging drivers are also not ABI
> > and generally can be removed at anytime.
[...]
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
> > +++ a/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h
> > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
> > #define F_SEAL_SHRINK 0x0002 /* prevent file from shrinking */
> > #define F_SEAL_GROW 0x0004 /* prevent file from growing */
> > #define F_SEAL_WRITE 0x0008 /* prevent writes */
> > +#define F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE 0x0010 /* prevent future writes while mapped */
> > /* (1U << 31) is reserved for signed error codes */
> >
> > /*
> > --- a/mm/memfd.c~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
> > +++ a/mm/memfd.c
> > @@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ static unsigned int *memfd_file_seals_pt
> > #define F_ALL_SEALS (F_SEAL_SEAL | \
> > F_SEAL_SHRINK | \
> > F_SEAL_GROW | \
> > - F_SEAL_WRITE)
> > + F_SEAL_WRITE | \
> > + F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)
> >
> > static int memfd_add_seals(struct file *file, unsigned int seals)
> > {
> > --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
> > +++ a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> > @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ static long hugetlbfs_punch_hole(struct
> > inode_lock(inode);
> >
> > /* protected by i_mutex */
> > - if (info->seals & F_SEAL_WRITE) {
> > + if (info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)) {
> > inode_unlock(inode);
> > return -EPERM;
> > }
> > --- a/mm/shmem.c~mm-add-an-f_seal_future_write-seal-to-memfd
> > +++ a/mm/shmem.c
> > @@ -2119,6 +2119,23 @@ out_nomem:
> >
> > static int shmem_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > {
> > + struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(file_inode(file));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * New PROT_READ and MAP_SHARED mmaps are not allowed when "future
>
> PROT_WRITE, perhaps?
Yes, fixed.
> > + * write" seal active.
> > + */
> > + if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) && (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) &&
> > + (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE))
> > + return -EPERM;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Since the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seals allow for a MAP_SHARED read-only
> > + * mapping, take care to not allow mprotect to revert protections.
> > + */
> > + if (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)
> > + vma->vm_flags &= ~(VM_MAYWRITE);
> > +
>
> This might all be clearer as:
>
> if (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE) {
> if (vma->vm_flags ...)
> return -EPERM;
> vma->vm_flags &= ~VM_MAYWRITE;
> }
>
> with appropriate comments inserted.
Agreed, its simpler. Updated patch is below. I squashed it with all the
earlier ones. Andy, could you provide Acks and/or Reviewed-by tag as well?
---8<-----------------------
From b5a4960e755af67e9f6f9e65db5113e712cf338e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 22:21:31 -0800
Subject: [PATCH v4] mm/memfd: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd
Android uses ashmem for sharing memory regions. We are looking forward to
migrating all usecases of ashmem to memfd so that we can possibly remove
the ashmem driver in the future from staging while also benefiting from
using memfd and contributing to it. Note staging drivers are also not ABI
and generally can be removed at anytime.
One of the main usecases Android has is the ability to create a region and
mmap it as writeable, then add protection against making any "future"
writes while keeping the existing already mmap'ed writeable-region active.
This allows us to implement a usecase where receivers of the shared
memory buffer can get a read-only view, while the sender continues to
write to the buffer. See CursorWindow documentation in Android for more
details:
https://developer.android.com/reference/android/database/CursorWindow
This usecase cannot be implemented with the existing F_SEAL_WRITE seal.
To support the usecase, this patch adds a new F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal
which prevents any future mmap and write syscalls from succeeding while
keeping the existing mmap active.
A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed by Andy.
self-tests are provided in later patch to verify the expected semantics.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
---
fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 2 +-
include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h | 1 +
mm/memfd.c | 3 ++-
mm/shmem.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
index 762028994f47..5b54bf893a67 100644
--- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
@@ -558,7 +558,7 @@ static long hugetlbfs_punch_hole(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
inode_lock(inode);
/* protected by i_mutex */
- if (info->seals & F_SEAL_WRITE) {
+ if (info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)) {
inode_unlock(inode);
return -EPERM;
}
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h
index 594b85f7cb86..1d338357df8a 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#define F_SEAL_SHRINK 0x0002 /* prevent file from shrinking */
#define F_SEAL_GROW 0x0004 /* prevent file from growing */
#define F_SEAL_WRITE 0x0008 /* prevent writes */
+#define F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE 0x0010 /* prevent future writes while mapped */
/* (1U << 31) is reserved for signed error codes */
/*
diff --git a/mm/memfd.c b/mm/memfd.c
index 97264c79d2cd..650e65a46b9c 100644
--- a/mm/memfd.c
+++ b/mm/memfd.c
@@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ static unsigned int *memfd_file_seals_ptr(struct file *file)
#define F_ALL_SEALS (F_SEAL_SEAL | \
F_SEAL_SHRINK | \
F_SEAL_GROW | \
- F_SEAL_WRITE)
+ F_SEAL_WRITE | \
+ F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)
static int memfd_add_seals(struct file *file, unsigned int seals)
{
diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
index 32eb29bd72c6..f5069e8225cc 100644
--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -2121,6 +2121,25 @@ int shmem_lock(struct file *file, int lock, struct user_struct *user)
static int shmem_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
{
+ struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(file_inode(file));
+
+
+ if (info->seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE) {
+ /*
+ * New PROT_WRITE and MAP_SHARED mmaps are not allowed when
+ * "future write" seal active.
+ */
+ if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) && (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))
+ return -EPERM;
+
+ /*
+ * Since the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seals allow for a MAP_SHARED
+ * read-only mapping, take care to not allow mprotect to revert
+ * protections.
+ */
+ vma->vm_flags &= ~(VM_MAYWRITE);
+ }
+
file_accessed(file);
vma->vm_ops = &shmem_vm_ops;
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGE_PAGECACHE) &&
@@ -2346,8 +2365,9 @@ shmem_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
pgoff_t index = pos >> PAGE_SHIFT;
/* i_mutex is held by caller */
- if (unlikely(info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_GROW))) {
- if (info->seals & F_SEAL_WRITE)
+ if (unlikely(info->seals & (F_SEAL_GROW |
+ F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE))) {
+ if (info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE))
return -EPERM;
if ((info->seals & F_SEAL_GROW) && pos + len > inode->i_size)
return -EPERM;
@@ -2610,7 +2630,7 @@ static long shmem_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset,
DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_ONSTACK(shmem_falloc_waitq);
/* protected by i_mutex */
- if (info->seals & F_SEAL_WRITE) {
+ if (info->seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)) {
error = -EPERM;
goto out;
}
--
2.19.1.1215.g8438c0b245-goog
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 09:21:37PM -0800, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Modify the tests for F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE based on the changes
> introduced in previous patch.
>
> Also add a test to make sure the reopen issue pointed by Jann Horn [1]
> is fixed.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAG48ez1h=v-JYnDw81HaYJzOfrNhwYksxmc2r=cJvdQVgYM+NA@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Cc: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 88 +++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
Since we squashed [1] the mm/memfd patch modifications suggested by Andy into
the original patch, I also squashed the selftests modifications and appended
the patch inline below if you want to take this instead:
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/#m8ba68f67f3ec24913a977b62bcaeafc4b194b8c8
---8<-----------------------
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH v4] selftests/memfd: add tests for F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal
Add tests to verify sealing memfds with the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE works as
expected.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 74 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
index 10baa1652fc2..c67d32eeb668 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
@@ -54,6 +54,22 @@ static int mfd_assert_new(const char *name, loff_t sz, unsigned int flags)
return fd;
}
+static int mfd_assert_reopen_fd(int fd_in)
+{
+ int r, fd;
+ char path[100];
+
+ sprintf(path, "/proc/self/fd/%d", fd_in);
+
+ fd = open(path, O_RDWR);
+ if (fd < 0) {
+ printf("re-open of existing fd %d failed\n", fd_in);
+ abort();
+ }
+
+ return fd;
+}
+
static void mfd_fail_new(const char *name, unsigned int flags)
{
int r;
@@ -255,6 +271,25 @@ static void mfd_assert_read(int fd)
munmap(p, mfd_def_size);
}
+/* Test that PROT_READ + MAP_SHARED mappings work. */
+static void mfd_assert_read_shared(int fd)
+{
+ void *p;
+
+ /* verify PROT_READ and MAP_SHARED *is* allowed */
+ p = mmap(NULL,
+ mfd_def_size,
+ PROT_READ,
+ MAP_SHARED,
+ fd,
+ 0);
+ if (p == MAP_FAILED) {
+ printf("mmap() failed: %m\n");
+ abort();
+ }
+ munmap(p, mfd_def_size);
+}
+
static void mfd_assert_write(int fd)
{
ssize_t l;
@@ -692,6 +727,44 @@ static void test_seal_write(void)
close(fd);
}
+/*
+ * Test SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE
+ * Test whether SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE actually prevents modifications.
+ */
+static void test_seal_future_write(void)
+{
+ int fd, fd2;
+ void *p;
+
+ printf("%s SEAL-FUTURE-WRITE\n", memfd_str);
+
+ fd = mfd_assert_new("kern_memfd_seal_future_write",
+ mfd_def_size,
+ MFD_CLOEXEC | MFD_ALLOW_SEALING);
+
+ p = mfd_assert_mmap_shared(fd);
+
+ mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, 0);
+
+ mfd_assert_add_seals(fd, F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE);
+ mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE);
+
+ /* read should pass, writes should fail */
+ mfd_assert_read(fd);
+ mfd_assert_read_shared(fd);
+ mfd_fail_write(fd);
+
+ fd2 = mfd_assert_reopen_fd(fd);
+ /* read should pass, writes should still fail */
+ mfd_assert_read(fd2);
+ mfd_assert_read_shared(fd2);
+ mfd_fail_write(fd2);
+
+ munmap(p, mfd_def_size);
+ close(fd2);
+ close(fd);
+}
+
/*
* Test SEAL_SHRINK
* Test whether SEAL_SHRINK actually prevents shrinking
@@ -945,6 +1018,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
test_basic();
test_seal_write();
+ test_seal_future_write();
test_seal_shrink();
test_seal_grow();
test_seal_resize();
--
2.19.1.1215.g8438c0b245-goog
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 15:09:06 -0800 Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Android uses ashmem for sharing memory regions. We are looking forward to
> migrating all usecases of ashmem to memfd so that we can possibly remove
> the ashmem driver in the future from staging while also benefiting from
> using memfd and contributing to it. Note staging drivers are also not ABI
> and generally can be removed at anytime.
>
> One of the main usecases Android has is the ability to create a region and
> mmap it as writeable, then add protection against making any "future"
> writes while keeping the existing already mmap'ed writeable-region active.
> This allows us to implement a usecase where receivers of the shared
> memory buffer can get a read-only view, while the sender continues to
> write to the buffer. See CursorWindow documentation in Android for more
> details:
> https://developer.android.com/reference/android/database/CursorWindow
>
> This usecase cannot be implemented with the existing F_SEAL_WRITE seal.
> To support the usecase, this patch adds a new F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal
> which prevents any future mmap and write syscalls from succeeding while
> keeping the existing mmap active.
>
> A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
> where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
> behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed by Andy.
> self-tests are provided in later patch to verify the expected semantics.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
This changelog doesn't have the nifty test case code which was in
earlier versions?
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 04:42:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> This changelog doesn't have the nifty test case code which was in
> earlier versions?
Why do we put regression tests in the changelogs anyway? We have
tools/testing/selftests/vm/ already, perhaps they should go there?
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 04:47:36PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 04:42:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This changelog doesn't have the nifty test case code which was in
> > earlier versions?
>
> Why do we put regression tests in the changelogs anyway? We have
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/ already, perhaps they should go there?
The reason is I didn't add it was that test case went out of date and the
updated version of the test case went into the selftests in patch 2/2. I
thought that would suffice which covers all the cases. That's why I dropped
it. Would that be Ok?
The changelog of the previous series had it because the selftest was added
only later.
Let me know, thanks,
- Joel