mm: gup: stop abusing try_grab_folio
- Published
- Last modified
- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean? →
- published
- Whether CISA lists it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog: proof that attackers are using it.What do these mean? →
- Not listed in CISA KEV
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
- Exploitation: none
- Automatable: no
- Technical impact: partial
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: gup: stop abusing try_grab_folio A kernel warning was reported when pinning folio in CMA memory when launching SEV virtual machine. The splat looks like: [ 464.325306] WARNING: CPU: 13 PID: 6734 at mm/gup.c:1313 __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520 [ 464.325464] CPU: 13 PID: 6734 Comm: qemu-kvm Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.6.33+ #6 [ 464.325477] RIP: 0010:__get_user_pages+0x423/0x520 [ 464.325515] Call Trace: [ 464.325520] <TASK> [ 464.325523] ? __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520 [ 464.325528] ? __warn+0x81/0x130 [ 464.325536] ? __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520 [ 464.325541] ? report_bug+0x171/0x1a0 [ 464.325549] ? handle_bug+0x3c/0x70 [ 464.325554] ? exc_invalid_op+0x17/0x70 [ 464.325558] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 [ 464.325567] ? __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520 [ 464.325575] __gup_longterm_locked+0x212/0x7a0 [ 464.325583] internal_get_user_pages_fast+0xfb/0x190 [ 464.325590] pin_user_pages_fast+0x47/0x60 [ 464.325598] sev_pin_memory+0xca/0x170 [kvm_amd] [ 464.325616] sev_mem_enc_register_region+0x81/0x130 [kvm_amd] Per the analysis done by yangge, when starting the SEV virtual machine, it will call pin_user_pages_fast(..., FOLL_LONGTERM, ...) to pin the memory. But the page is in CMA area, so fast GUP will fail then fallback to the slow path due to the longterm pinnalbe check in try_grab_folio(). The slow path will try to pin the pages then migrate them out of CMA area. But the slow path also uses try_grab_folio() to pin the page, it will also fail due to the same check then the above warning is triggered. In addition, the try_grab_folio() is supposed to be used in fast path and it elevates folio refcount by using add ref unless zero. We are guaranteed to have at least one stable reference in slow path, so the simple atomic add could be used. The performance difference should be trivial, but the misuse may be confusing and misleading. Redefined try_grab_folio() to try_grab_folio_fast(), and try_grab_page() to try_grab_folio(), and use them in the proper paths. This solves both the abuse and the kernel warning. The proper naming makes their usecase more clear and should prevent from abusing in the future. peterx said: : The user will see the pin fails, for gpu-slow it further triggers the WARN : right below that failure (as in the original report): : : folio = try_grab_folio(page, page_increm - 1, : foll_flags); : if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio)) { <------------------------ here : /* : * Release the 1st page ref if the : * folio is problematic, fail hard. : */ : gup_put_folio(page_folio(page), 1, : foll_flags); : ret = -EFAULT; : goto out; : } [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1719478388-31917-1-git-send-email-yangge1116@126.com/ [shy828301@gmail.com: fix implicit declaration of function try_grab_folio_fast]
Timeline
- CVE published
- CISA SSVC assessment
Exploitation: none · Automatable: no · Technical impact: partial
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- Linux Linux
Version range not reported
- Linux Linux
6.6