linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/11] change memory_is_poisoned

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:   Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:23:45 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Abbott Liu <liuwenliang@...wei.com>
Cc:     <linux@...linux.org.uk>, <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        <labbott@...hat.com>, <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        <mhocko@...e.com>, <cdall@...aro.org>, <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        <catalin.marinas@....com>, <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        <tglx@...utronix.de>, <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
        <keescook@...omium.org>, <arnd@...db.de>,
        <vladimir.murzin@....com>, <tixy@...aro.org>,
        <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>,
        <mingo@...nel.org>, <grygorii.strashko@...aro.org>,
        <glider@...gle.com>, <dvyukov@...gle.com>, <opendmb@...il.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <jiazhenghua@...wei.com>,
        <dylix.dailei@...wei.com>, <zengweilin@...wei.com>,
        <heshaoliang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] change memory_is_poisoned_16 for aligned error

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:22:22 +0800 Abbott Liu <liuwenliang@...wei.com> wrote:

>  Because arm instruction set don't support access the address which is
>  not aligned, so must change memory_is_poisoned_16 for arm.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/kasan/kasan.c
> +++ b/mm/kasan/kasan.c
> @@ -149,6 +149,25 @@ static __always_inline bool memory_is_poisoned_2_4_8(unsigned long addr,
>  	return memory_is_poisoned_1(addr + size - 1);
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM
> +static __always_inline bool memory_is_poisoned_16(unsigned long addr)
> +{
> +	u8 *shadow_addr = (u8 *)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)addr);
> +
> +	if (unlikely(shadow_addr[0] || shadow_addr[1])) return true;

Coding-style is messed up.  Please use scripts/checkpatch.pl.

> +	else {
> +		/*
> +		 * If two shadow bytes covers 16-byte access, we don't
> +		 * need to do anything more. Otherwise, test the last
> +		 * shadow byte.
> +		 */
> +		if (likely(IS_ALIGNED(addr, KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE)))
> +			return false;
> +		return memory_is_poisoned_1(addr + 15);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +#else
>  static __always_inline bool memory_is_poisoned_16(unsigned long addr)
>  {
>  	u16 *shadow_addr = (u16 *)kasan_mem_to_shadow((void *)addr);
> @@ -159,6 +178,7 @@ static __always_inline bool memory_is_poisoned_16(unsigned long addr)
>  
>  	return *shadow_addr;
>  }
> +#endif

- I don't understand why this is necessary.  memory_is_poisoned_16()
  already handles unaligned addresses?

- If it's needed on ARM then presumably it will be needed on other
  architectures, so CONFIG_ARM is insufficiently general.

- If the present memory_is_poisoned_16() indeed doesn't work on ARM,
  it would be better to generalize/fix it in some fashion rather than
  creating a new variant of the function.