linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] mm/slab_common.c: Add common support for slab saniziation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:48:01 +0100
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Laura Abbott <laura@...bott.name>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] mm/slab_common.c: Add common support for slab
 saniziation

On 22.12.2015 4:40, Laura Abbott wrote:
> Each of the different allocators (SLAB/SLUB/SLOB) handles
> clearing of objects differently depending on configuration.
> Add common infrastructure for selecting sanitization levels
> (off, slow path only, partial, full) and marking caches as
> appropriate.
> 
> All credit for the original work should be given to Brad Spengler and
> the PaX Team.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <laura@...bott.name>
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SLAB_MEMORY_SANITIZE
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> +#define SLAB_MEMORY_SANITIZE_VALUE       '\xfe'
> +#else
> +#define SLAB_MEMORY_SANITIZE_VALUE       '\xff'
> +#endif
> +enum slab_sanitize_mode {
> +	/* No sanitization */
> +	SLAB_SANITIZE_OFF = 0,
> +
> +	/* Partial sanitization happens only on the slow path */
> +	SLAB_SANITIZE_PARTIAL_SLOWPATH = 1,

Can you explain more about this variant? I wonder who might find it useful
except someone getting a false sense of security, but cheaper.
It sounds like wanting the cake and eat it too :)
I would be surprised if such IMHO half-solution existed in the original
PAX_MEMORY_SANITIZE too?

Or is there something that guarantees that the objects freed on hotpath won't
stay there for long so the danger of leak is low? (And what about
use-after-free?) It depends on further slab activity, no? (I'm not that familiar
with SLUB, but I would expect the hotpath there being similar to SLAB freeing
the object on per-cpu array_cache. But, it seems the PARTIAL_SLOWPATH is not
implemented for SLAB, so there might be some fundamental difference I'm missing.)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/