Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:26:55 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mmap locking API: Don't check locking if the mm
 isn't live yet
Message-ID: <20200930232655.GE9916@ziepe.ca>
References: <20200930011944.19869-1-jannh@google.com>
 <CAG48ez03YJG9JU_6tGiMcaVjuTyRE_o4LEQ7901b5ZoCnNAjcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200930123000.GC9916@ziepe.ca>
 <CAG48ez2z1R8MLS0_pjhBSGnJC8RwaHMpiGdv8GhJUCrwtsLOPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG48ez0fhY0twgriBDv9RU1YG8mBxg_KoK_YsLPWYo4feAQ=Sg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez0fhY0twgriBDv9RU1YG8mBxg_KoK_YsLPWYo4feAQ=Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:14:57PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:30 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 06:20:00PM -0700, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > In preparation for adding a mmap_assert_locked() check in
> > > > __get_user_pages(), teach the mmap_assert_*locked() helpers that it's fine
> > > > to operate on an mm without locking in the middle of execve() as long as
> > > > it hasn't been installed on a process yet.
> > >
> > > I'm happy to see lockdep being added here, but can you elaborate on
> > > why add this mmap_locked_required instead of obtaining the lock in the
> > > execv path?
> >
> > My thinking was: At that point, we're logically still in the
> > single-owner initialization phase of the mm_struct. Almost any object
> > has initialization and teardown steps that occur in a context where
> > the object only has a single owner, and therefore no locking is
> > required. It seems to me that adding locking in places like
> > get_arg_page() would be confusing because it would suggest the
> > existence of concurrency where there is no actual concurrency, and it
> > might be annoying in terms of lockdep if someone tries to use
> > something like get_arg_page() while holding the mmap_sem of the
> > calling process. It would also mean that we'd be doing extra locking
> > in normal kernel builds that isn't actually logically required.
> >
> > Hmm, on the other hand, dup_mmap() already locks the child mm (with
> > mmap_write_lock_nested()), so I guess it wouldn't be too bad to also
> > do it in get_arg_page() and tomoyo_dump_page(), with comments that
> > note that we're doing this for lockdep consistency... I guess I can go
> > change this in v2.
> 
> Actually, I'm taking that back. There's an extra problem:
> get_arg_page() accesses bprm->vma, which is set all the way back in
> __bprm_mm_init(). We really shouldn't be pretending that we're
> properly taking the mmap_sem when actually, we keep reusing a
> vm_area_struct pointer.

Any chance the mmap lock can just be held from mm_struct allocation
till exec inserts it into the process?

> Does that sound reasonable?

My only concern is how weird it is to do this with a variable, I've
never seen something like this before

Jason