Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/mprotect: Call arch_validate_prot under mmap_lock and with length

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 04:42:55PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static inline long do_mmap2(unsigned long addr, size_t len,
> > >  {
> > >       long ret = -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > -     if (!arch_validate_prot(prot, addr))
> > > +     if (!arch_validate_prot(prot, addr, len))
> >
> > This call isn't under mmap lock.  I also find it rather weird as the
> > generic code only calls arch_validate_prot from mprotect, only powerpc
> > also calls it from mmap.
> >
> > This seems to go back to commit ef3d3246a0d0
> > ("powerpc/mm: Add Strong Access Ordering support")
> 
> I'm _guessing_ the idea in the generic case might be that mmap()
> doesn't check unknown bits in the protection flags, and therefore
> maybe people wanted to avoid adding new error cases that could be
> caused by random high bits being set? So while the mprotect() case
> checks the flags and refuses unknown values, the mmap() code just lets
> the architecture figure out which bits are actually valid to set (via
> arch_calc_vm_prot_bits()) and silently ignores the rest?
> 
> And powerpc apparently decided that they do want to error out on bogus
> prot values passed to their version of mmap(), and in exchange, assume
> in arch_calc_vm_prot_bits() that the protection bits are valid?

The problem really is that now programs behave different on powerpc
compared to all other architectures.

> powerpc's arch_validate_prot() doesn't actually need the mmap lock, so
> I think this is fine-ish for now (as in, while the code is a bit
> unclean, I don't think I'm making it worse, and I don't think it's
> actually buggy). In theory, we could move the arch_validate_prot()
> call over into the mmap guts, where we're holding the lock, and gate
> it on the architecture or on some feature CONFIG that powerpc can
> activate in its Kconfig. But I'm not sure whether that'd be helping or
> making things worse, so when I sent this patch, I deliberately left
> the powerpc stuff as-is.

For now I'd just duplicate the trivial logic from arch_validate_prot
in the powerpc version of do_mmap2 and add a comment that this check
causes a gratious incompatibility to all other architectures.  And then
hope that the powerpc maintainers fix it up :)