[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:01:46 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...roid.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] initmem: introduce CONFIG_INIT_ALL_HEAP
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:55 AM Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:14 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:43 AM Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > I've looked at doing something similar in the past (failing to find
> > > the thread this morning...) and while this will work, it has pretty
> > > serious performance issues. It's not actually the poisoning which
> > > is expensive but that turning on debugging removes the cpu slab
> > > which has significant performance penalties.
> > >
> > > I'd rather go back to the proposal of just poisoning the slab
> > > at alloc/free without using SLAB_POISON.
> >
> > I still agree this would make the most sense. Fundamentally it's not a
> > debugging feature.
> Wasn't it you who suggested using SLAB_POISON in the first round of comments? :)
Sure, if we want to use what we have right now, that's the way to go.
Optimally, I'd like to see it done the way Laura mentioned, but that's
a long road to convince the heap maintainers, etc.
> I actually have a working implementation that piggybacks on existing
> __GFP_ZERO code to initialize page_alloc() and SLUB allocations:
> https://github.com/google/kmsan/commit/4907af529ad525378a0728435c96d3812f71e594
> https://github.com/google/kmsan/commit/69618a9668bcf27700cc5da42eebf8ab50d1f56a
>
> I'd better cook a patch based on that.
I think it's still better to zero at free (this reduces the lifetime
of the data in memory and should make some use-after-tree bugs stand
out more), but we'll need to do something like what you have here for
doing memory tagging anyway, so we likely need both.
> There's also some overhead when allocations are initialized twice (in
> page_alloc() and kmalloc()) or thrice (page_alloc(), kmalloc() and
> e.g. sock_alloc_send_pskb())
> We can introduce another GFP flag explicitly telling the allocator to
> not initialize the memory chunk if we know it'll be initialized by a
> higher level allocator
> (something along the lines of
> https://github.com/google/kmsan/commit/4fc8cff79d868c29688c8a4186e504fda362f6fd)
Agreed.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
