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  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:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:16:26 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <>
Cc:     Topi Miettinen <>,,,,,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Jann Horn <>,
        Linux API <>,
        Matthew Wilcox <>,
        Mike Rapoport <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/vmalloc: randomize vmalloc() allocations

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 01:24:10PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:04:42AM +0200, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> > What's the problem with that? It seems to me that nothing relies on specific
> > addresses of the chunks, so it should be possible to randomize these too.
> > Also the alignment is honored.
> > 
> My concern are:
> - it is not a vmalloc allocator;
> - per-cpu allocator allocates chunks, thus it might be it happens only once. It does not allocate it often;

That's actually the reason to randomize it: if it always ends up in the
same place at every boot, it becomes a stable target for attackers.

> - changing it will likely introduce issues you are not aware of;
> - it is not supposed to be interacting with vmalloc allocator. Read the
>   comment under pcpu_get_vm_areas();
> Therefore i propose just not touch it.

How about splitting it from this patch instead? Then it can get separate
testing, etc.

Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists