From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
This is just a resend of the previous series at
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1014892/
with a small if block refactor as Andy suggested:
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/comment/1198679/
All,
Could you please provide your Reviewed-by / Acked-by tags?
I will also resend the manpage changes shortly.
Joel Fernandes (Google) (2):
mm/memfd: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd
selftests/memfd: Add tests for F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal
fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 2 +-
include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h | 1 +
mm/memfd.c | 3 +-
mm/shmem.c | 25 +++++++-
tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++
5 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--
2.20.1.97.g81188d93c3-goog
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
Add tests to verify sealing memfds with the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE works as
expected.
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
Cc: John Stultz <[email protected]>
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();
--
2.20.1.97.g81188d93c3-goog
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
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]/
[Thanks a lot to Andy for suggestions to improve code]
Cc: 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 | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
index 53ea3cef526e..3daf471bbd92 100644
--- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
@@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ 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 6448cdd9a350..a2f8658f1c55 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 6ece1e2fe76e..3c98cc9655b4 100644
--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -2125,6 +2125,24 @@ 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) &&
@@ -2375,8 +2393,9 @@ 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;
@@ -2639,7 +2658,7 @@ 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;
}
--
2.20.1.97.g81188d93c3-goog
On 1/12/19 1:38 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
>
> Add tests to verify sealing memfds with the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE works as
> expected.
>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
> Cc: John Stultz <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
> ---
Looks good to me. For selftest part of the series:
Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
thanks,
-- Shuah
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 06:39:59PM -0700, shuah wrote:
> On 1/12/19 1:38 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
> >
> > Add tests to verify sealing memfds with the F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE works as
> > expected.
> >
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Cc: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
> > Cc: John Stultz <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <[email protected]>
> > ---
>
> Looks good to me. For selftest part of the series:
>
> Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]>
Thanks!
John, could you provide your Reviewed-by again for patch 1/2 ? I had dropped
it since the patch had some more changes.
thanks,
- Joel
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 12:38 PM Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <[email protected]>
>
> 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]/
>
> [Thanks a lot to Andy for suggestions to improve code]
> Cc: 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 | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Acked-by: John Stultz <[email protected]>