Hi Daniel,

This is looking really good!

I spotted a few more things we need to deal with, so I've suggested some
(not even compile-tested) code for that below. Mostly that's just error
handling, and using helpers to avoid things getting too verbose.

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:15:48PM +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> +void kasan_populate_vmalloc(unsigned long requested_size, struct vm_struct 
> *area)
> +{
> +     unsigned long shadow_alloc_start, shadow_alloc_end;
> +     unsigned long addr;
> +     unsigned long page;
> +     pgd_t *pgdp;
> +     p4d_t *p4dp;
> +     pud_t *pudp;
> +     pmd_t *pmdp;
> +     pte_t *ptep;
> +     pte_t pte;
> +
> +     shadow_alloc_start = ALIGN_DOWN(
> +             (unsigned long)kasan_mem_to_shadow(area->addr),
> +             PAGE_SIZE);
> +     shadow_alloc_end = ALIGN(
> +             (unsigned long)kasan_mem_to_shadow(area->addr + area->size),
> +             PAGE_SIZE);
> +
> +     addr = shadow_alloc_start;
> +     do {
> +             pgdp = pgd_offset_k(addr);
> +             p4dp = p4d_alloc(&init_mm, pgdp, addr);
> +             pudp = pud_alloc(&init_mm, p4dp, addr);
> +             pmdp = pmd_alloc(&init_mm, pudp, addr);
> +             ptep = pte_alloc_kernel(pmdp, addr);
> +
> +             /*
> +              * The pte may not be none if we allocated the page earlier to
> +              * use part of it for another allocation.
> +              *
> +              * Because we only ever add to the vmalloc shadow pages and
> +              * never free any, we can optimise here by checking for the pte
> +              * presence outside the lock. It's OK to race with another
> +              * allocation here because we do the 'real' test under the lock.
> +              * This just allows us to save creating/freeing the new shadow
> +              * page in the common case.
> +              */
> +             if (!pte_none(*ptep))
> +                     continue;
> +
> +             /*
> +              * We're probably going to need to populate the shadow.
> +              * Allocate and poision the shadow page now, outside the lock.
> +              */
> +             page = __get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL);
> +             memset((void *)page, KASAN_VMALLOC_INVALID, PAGE_SIZE);
> +             pte = pfn_pte(PFN_DOWN(__pa(page)), PAGE_KERNEL);
> +
> +             spin_lock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
> +             if (pte_none(*ptep)) {
> +                     set_pte_at(&init_mm, addr, ptep, pte);
> +                     page = 0;
> +             }
> +             spin_unlock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
> +
> +             /* catch the case where we raced and don't need the page */
> +             if (page)
> +                     free_page(page);
> +     } while (addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != shadow_alloc_end);
> +

>From looking at this for a while, there are a few more things we should
sort out:

* We need to handle allocations failing. I think we can get most of that
  by using apply_to_page_range() to allocate the tables for us.

* Between poisoning the page and updating the page table, we need an
  smp_wmb() to ensure that the poison is visible to other CPUs, similar
  to what __pte_alloc() and friends do when allocating new tables.

* We can use the split pmd locks (used by both x86 and arm64) to
  minimize contention on the init_mm ptl. As apply_to_page_range()
  doesn't pass the corresponding pmd in, we'll have to re-walk the table
  in the callback, but I suspect that's better than having all vmalloc
  operations contend on the same ptl.

I think it would make sense to follow the style of the __alloc_p??
functions and factor out the actual initialization into a helper like:

static int __kasan_populate_vmalloc_pte(pmd_t *pmdp, pte_t *ptep)
{
        unsigned long page;
        spinlock_t *ptl;
        pte_t pte;

        page = __get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL);
        if (!page)
                return -ENOMEM;

        memset((void *)page, KASAN_VMALLOC_INVALID, PAGE_SIZE);
        pte = pfn_pte(page_to_pfn(page), PAGE_KERNEL);

        /*
         * Ensure poisoning is visible before the shadow is made visible
         * to other CPUs.
         */
        smp_wmb();
        
        ptl = pmd_lock(&init_mm, pmdp);
        if (likely(pte_none(*ptep))) {
                set_pte(ptep, pte)
                page = 0;
        }
        spin_unlock(ptl);
        if (page)
                free_page(page);
        return 0;
}

... with the apply_to_page_range() callback looking a bit like
alloc_p??(), grabbing the pmd for its ptl.

static int kasan_populate_vmalloc_pte(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long addr, void 
*unused)
{
        pgd_t *pgdp;
        p4d_t *p4dp;
        pud_t *pudp;
        pmd_t *pmdp;

        if (likely(!pte_none(*ptep)))
                return 0;

        pgdp = pgd_offset_k(addr);
        p4dp = p4d_offset(pgdp, addr)
        pudp = pud_pffset(p4dp, addr);
        pmdp = pmd_offset(pudp, addr);

        return __kasan_populate_vmalloc_pte(pmdp, ptep);
}

... and the main function looking something like:

int kasan_populate_vmalloc(...)
{
        unsigned long shadow_start, shadow_size;
        unsigned long addr;
        int ret;

        // calculate shadow bounds here
        
        ret = apply_to_page_range(&init_mm, shadow_start, shadow_size,
                                  kasan_populate_vmalloc_pte, NULL);
        if (ret)
                return ret;
        
        ...

        // unpoison the new allocation here
}

> +     kasan_unpoison_shadow(area->addr, requested_size);
> +
> +     /*
> +      * We have to poison the remainder of the allocation each time, not
> +      * just when the shadow page is first allocated, because vmalloc may
> +      * reuse addresses, and an early large allocation would cause us to
> +      * miss OOBs in future smaller allocations.
> +      *
> +      * The alternative is to poison the shadow on vfree()/vunmap(). We
> +      * don't because the unmapping the virtual addresses should be
> +      * sufficient to find most UAFs.
> +      */
> +     requested_size = round_up(requested_size, KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE);
> +     kasan_poison_shadow(area->addr + requested_size,
> +                         area->size - requested_size,
> +                         KASAN_VMALLOC_INVALID);
> +}

Is it painful to do the unpoison in the vfree/vunmap paths? I haven't
looked, so I might have missed something that makes that nasty.

If it's possible, I think it would be preferable to do so. It would be
consistent with the non-vmalloc KASAN cases. IIUC in that case we only
need the requested size here (and not the vmap_area), so we could just
take start and size as arguments.

Thanks,
Mark.

Reply via email to