linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator

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:	Sun, 31 May 2009 09:14:03 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Larry H." <research@...reption.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, pageexec@...email.hu,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page 
	allocator

Hi Alan,

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> It's pretty damn obvious that Larry's patches have a much bigger
>> performance impact than using kzfree() for selected parts of the
>> kernel. So yes, I do expect him to benchmark and demonstrate that
>> kzfree() has _performance problems_ before we can look into merging
>> his patches.
>
> We seem to be muddling up multiple things here which is not helpful.

Yup.

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> There are three things going on
>
> #1 Is ksize() buggy ?

No, there's nothing wrong with ksize() I am aware of. Yes, Larry has
been saying it is but hasn't provided any evidence so far.

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> #2 Using kzfree() to clear specific bits of memory (and I question the
> kzfree implementation as it seems ksize can return numbers much much
> bigger than the allocated space you need to clear - correct but oversize)
> or using other flags. I'd favour kzfree personally (and fixing it to work
> properly)

Well, yes, that's what kzfree() needs to do given the current API. I
am not sure why you think it's a problem, though. Adding a size
argument to the function will make it more error prone.

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> #3 People wanting to be able to select for more security *irrespective*
> of performance cost. Which is no different to SELinux for example.

Yeah, as I said before, I really don't have any objections to this. I
just think nobody is going to enable it so memset() or kzfree() in
relevant places is probably a good idea.

                                   Pekka
--
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/