Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp1595562imn; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:32:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELu/adh0cUopLbqSAiq03d3xysLoJik97dW2Wh1uRfic4aQ4qoMLiX68RyRtK86lMwF1HxZ3 X-Received: by 10.98.102.79 with SMTP id a76mr14059785pfc.162.1522085552886; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:32:32 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1522085552; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=lD/7DcYZ36wHzOhHJhbeK8EGM/T9vdfI+gobnLJXFrI1axALmRlk/22zhHMnc5233Z bVR34iLM//fVYjuYD60JCgFHhFWeHpaw7MhNAlu3svrGOBxynMEm3s3MKVjW+yUVbOmp /pBWw/7sLjfxoyskx22Kmp7pUU5BCGW7asNbLBFgaeTyCpmFZHNbo2ggEuUe/gPXM2u4 +vu4gUEnvb4IFyZwGaU4OQTSQLsMhZN6Fx+6MwxhW+lg8BsQc5xspBoslh+9oYWu2D3w /QnVCXaPGtRrTCapEffr+vwILWIuSitlFaJo71USbIfV4XWLieTDBcTA7mI1vW0xbUT2 Nc0Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date :from:cc:to:subject:arc-authentication-results; bh=iBo0lHKXt9kCQx1IDyQ16okuXri3bN11NjWi5Al2af4=; b=DsEAn86Q7262yyOSbMK9gUucZbIo/hpu0cWJ8qbRC/b/zCxMN+zPZjbBFk9s3URmyn LTgXG+g2D2zxHJrCchkQE4xVCKoefdMDJXjj5xCaFab2qO6lCF/KXeu6BqO7yr2DSzS3 f+zvtgTw9NzczRuFHEOpAkEiULlWtqP2yr/Ot4vAktBcX42RGeLFoypLrQhoXz6ARXNg nWLcEi4OQMGOnsKNb7rL9ednI3+9YZRG+q0KJijGz9c4y3Ul8Ol+MrpxrkH03t2nF64t XdTd0qMqGGMgk/EI4KrOU+f/8D6DM3rnzwG3jkUSMQZBdJEMB+nmAgAC8w1e1ak7x+MO vt5w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g8si10262712pgv.740.2018.03.26.10.32.17; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752843AbeCZRas (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:30:48 -0400 Received: from mga17.intel.com ([192.55.52.151]:1189 "EHLO mga17.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752717AbeCZR3k (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:29:40 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Mar 2018 10:29:40 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,365,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="28160611" Received: from viggo.jf.intel.com (HELO localhost.localdomain) ([10.54.39.119]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2018 10:29:40 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 4/9] x86, pkeys: override pkey when moving away from PROT_EXEC To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Dave Hansen , shakeelb@google.com, stable@kernel.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, dave.hansen@intel.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, shuah@kernel.org From: Dave Hansen Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:27:27 -0700 References: <20180326172721.D5B2CBB4@viggo.jf.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20180326172721.D5B2CBB4@viggo.jf.intel.com> Message-Id: <20180326172727.025EBF16@viggo.jf.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Dave Hansen I got a bug report that the following code (roughly) was causing a SIGSEGV: mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_EXEC); mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_NONE); mprotect(ptr, size, PROT_READ); *ptr = 100; The problem is hit when the mprotect(PROT_EXEC) is implicitly assigned a protection key to the VMA, and made that key ACCESS_DENY|WRITE_DENY. The PROT_NONE mprotect() failed to remove the protection key, and the PROT_NONE-> PROT_READ left the PTE usable, but the pkey still in place and left the memory inaccessible. To fix this, we ensure that we always "override" the pkee at mprotect() if the VMA does not have execute-only permissions, but the VMA has the execute-only pkey. We had a check for PROT_READ/WRITE, but it did not work for PROT_NONE. This entirely removes the PROT_* checks, which ensures that PROT_NONE now works. Reported-by: Shakeel Butt Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen Fixes: 62b5f7d013f ("mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support") Cc: stable@kernel.org Cc: Ram Pai Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Dave Hansen Cc: Michael Ellermen Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Shuah Khan --- b/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h | 12 +++++++++++- b/arch/x86/mm/pkeys.c | 19 ++++++++++--------- 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff -puN arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h~pkeys-abandon-exec-only-pkey-more-aggressively arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h~pkeys-abandon-exec-only-pkey-more-aggressively 2018-03-26 10:22:35.380170193 -0700 +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h 2018-03-26 10:22:35.385170193 -0700 @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@ #ifndef _ASM_X86_PKEYS_H #define _ASM_X86_PKEYS_H +#define ARCH_DEFAULT_PKEY 0 + #define arch_max_pkey() (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE) ? 16 : 1) extern int arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey, @@ -15,7 +17,7 @@ extern int __execute_only_pkey(struct mm static inline int execute_only_pkey(struct mm_struct *mm) { if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE)) - return 0; + return ARCH_DEFAULT_PKEY; return __execute_only_pkey(mm); } @@ -56,6 +58,14 @@ bool mm_pkey_is_allocated(struct mm_stru return false; if (pkey >= arch_max_pkey()) return false; + /* + * The exec-only pkey is set in the allocation map, but + * is not available to any of the user interfaces like + * mprotect_pkey(). + */ + if (pkey == mm->context.execute_only_pkey) + return false; + return mm_pkey_allocation_map(mm) & (1U << pkey); } diff -puN arch/x86/mm/pkeys.c~pkeys-abandon-exec-only-pkey-more-aggressively arch/x86/mm/pkeys.c --- a/arch/x86/mm/pkeys.c~pkeys-abandon-exec-only-pkey-more-aggressively 2018-03-26 10:22:35.381170193 -0700 +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pkeys.c 2018-03-26 10:22:35.385170193 -0700 @@ -94,15 +94,7 @@ int __arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct */ if (pkey != -1) return pkey; - /* - * Look for a protection-key-drive execute-only mapping - * which is now being given permissions that are not - * execute-only. Move it back to the default pkey. - */ - if (vma_is_pkey_exec_only(vma) && - (prot & (PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE))) { - return 0; - } + /* * The mapping is execute-only. Go try to get the * execute-only protection key. If we fail to do that, @@ -113,7 +105,16 @@ int __arch_override_mprotect_pkey(struct pkey = execute_only_pkey(vma->vm_mm); if (pkey > 0) return pkey; + } else if (vma_is_pkey_exec_only(vma)) { + /* + * Protections are *not* PROT_EXEC, but the mapping + * is using the exec-only pkey. This mapping was + * PROT_EXEC and will no longer be. Move back to + * the default pkey. + */ + return ARCH_DEFAULT_PKEY; } + /* * This is a vanilla, non-pkey mprotect (or we failed to * setup execute-only), inherit the pkey from the VMA we _