[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171025034934.GD15832@eros>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 14:49:34 +1100
From: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>,
"Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <wilal.deacon@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Chris Fries <cfries@...gle.com>, Dave Weinstein <olorin@...gle.com>,
Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] printk: hash addresses printed with %p
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 01:25:52PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Tobin C. Harding <me@...in.cc> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 01:00:03AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> >> Provided you've tested this and the static_key guard stuff actually
> >> works as intended,
> >
> > I tested by inserting a simple module that calls printf() with a bunch of
> > different specifiers. So it's tested but not stress tested. Some stress testing
> > might be nice, no ideas how to go about that though.
>
> By the way, it occurred to me one thing you might want to verify
> closely is whether or not that callback block executes from process
> context and whether or not the static_key stuff sleeps. If both,
> there's a problem.
TL;DR the static_key stuff can't sleep, the callback block _may_ execute
in process context.
By 'verify closely' I'm guessing you mean 'think really hard about it', is
this correct? Please note, I am not being facetious, I am genuinely
trying to understand the suggestion.I guessed this since writing code
to verify something true has the same flaws as writing unit tests to
verify that code has no bugs.
So if it is 'think really hard about it', then my 'thinking really hard'
will not be the same as a more experienced kernel hackers 'thinking
really hard'. If I outline the results of my 'think really hard' then
perhaps just a 'think a little bit' from a _real_ kernel hacker may
uncover any deficits.
First, the static_key stuff.
DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(no_ptr_secret) : Doesn't sleep, just a
declaration.
if (static_branch_unlikely(&no_ptr_secret)) {} : Doesn't sleep, just
some assembler to jump to returning true or false.
static_branch_disable(&no_ptr_secret) : Doesn't sleep, just atomic read
and set and maybe a WARN_ONCE.
Now for the 'executes from process context' stuff.
If the callback mechanism is utilized (i.e print before randomness is
ready) then the call back will be executed the next time the randomness
pool gets added to, if this is done in process context then it seems
feasible that the call back will execute in process context.
Also, I believe the initialization function (fill_random_ptr_key()) can
be called in process context. This thought experiment shows how. If all
uses of %p in the kernel were removed except a single one which is in a
function that is called for process context then the first time that
function is called the initialization function will be called, hence it
will be called in process context.
I'm not sure if I have done justice to your comment, if not please do
say so <insert explanation about being a newbie here>.
thanks,
Tobin.
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.
