[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez0BJNhfaCJde0UWrNLztsuAKR3QCm+d-j_Qa3R_KDSKHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:39:18 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc: 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@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, sspatil@...roid.com,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] initmem: introduce CONFIG_INIT_ALL_HEAP
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:20 PM Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com> wrote:
> This config option enables CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG and CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING
> without the need to pass any boot parameters.
>
> No performance optimizations are done at the moment to reduce double
> initialization of memory regions.
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/page_poison.c b/mm/page_poison.c
> index 21d4f97cb49b..a1985f33f635 100644
> --- a/mm/page_poison.c
> +++ b/mm/page_poison.c
> @@ -12,9 +12,14 @@ static bool want_page_poisoning __read_mostly;
>
> static int __init early_page_poison_param(char *buf)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_INIT_ALL_HEAP
> + want_page_poisoning = true;
> + return 0;
> +#else
> if (!buf)
> return -EINVAL;
> return strtobool(buf, &want_page_poisoning);
> +#endif
> }
> early_param("page_poison", early_page_poison_param);
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 1b08fbcb7e61..00e0197d3f35 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1287,6 +1287,8 @@ static int __init setup_slub_debug(char *str)
> if (*str == ',')
> slub_debug_slabs = str + 1;
> out:
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INIT_ALL_HEAP))
> + slub_debug |= SLAB_POISON;
> return 1;
> }
I don't understand how this is supposed to work. As far as I can tell,
the "slub_debug |= SLAB_POISON;" only happens if you actually pass in
a "slub_debug" boot parameter? Same thing for "want_page_poisoning =
true;".
Also, didn't Laura suggest in
https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2019/04/08/4 that a
different approach might be more sensible to reduce the performance
hit?
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.
