[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120409222443.GW1625@moon>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:24:43 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: + syscalls-x86-add-__nr_kcmp-syscall-v8.patch added to -mm tree
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 03:10:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Back on to kcmp.
>
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:27:52 +0400
> Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 05:06:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Not a comment, but the question. I am just curious...
> > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * We don't expose real in-memory order of objects for security
> > > > + * reasons, still the comparison results should be suitable for
> > > > + * sorting. Thus, we obfuscate kernel pointers values and compare
> > > > + * the production instead.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static unsigned long cookies[KCMP_TYPES][2] __read_mostly;
> > > > +
> > > > +static long kptr_obfuscate(long v, int type)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return (v ^ cookies[type][0]) * cookies[type][1];
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > OK, but why do we need this per type? Just to add more obfuscation
> > > or there is another reason?
> >
> > Just to add more obfuscation.
>
> Having re-read most of the (enormous) email discussion on the kcmp()
> syscall patch, I'm thinking:
>
> - Nobody seems to understand the obfuscation logic. Jon sounded
> confused, Oleg sounds confused and it's rather unclear what it does,
> how it does it and why it does it.
The obfuscation logic was done with great help from hpa@. And the main
idea was to have ordered results after obfuscation. Per-type noise increase
randomization of results. So Andrew, I actually dont know what to add
here. We don't want to provide kernel order back to user-space in
naked manner.
>
> - Lots of people have looked at the code and made comments and there
> have been lots of changes. But we presently have zero Acked-by's and
> Reviewed-by's.
>
I guess I can ask hpa@ and Eric for Reviewed-by or Acked-by tag?
> I guess this means that at present nobody is aware of any issues with
> the proposal, btu nobody is terribly excisted about it either?
>
I would rather say not much people yet use it.
> So what do people think? Any issues? Any nacks? Should I sneak it
> into Linus this week or do we need to go another round with it all?
>
> I'd like to at least have a fighting chance of understnading what's
> going on with that obfuscation code.
Cyrill
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists