[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53BEF1E5.2000502@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:04:53 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>
CC: Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Konstantin Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Alexey Preobrazhensky <preobr@...gle.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <adech.fo@...il.com>,
Yuri Gribov <tetra2005@...il.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH RESEND -next 01/21] Add kernel address sanitizer infrastructure.
On 07/10/2014 12:48 PM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>>> How does this interact with vmalloc() addresses or those from a kmap()?
>>>>
>>> It's used only for lowmem:
>>>
>>> static inline bool addr_is_in_mem(unsigned long addr)
>>> {
>>> return likely(addr >= PAGE_OFFSET && addr < (unsigned long)high_memory);
>>> }
>>
>> That's fine, and definitely covers the common cases. Could you make
>> sure to call this out explicitly? Also, there's nothing to _keep_ this
>> approach working for things out of the direct map, right? It would just
>> be a matter of updating the shadow memory to have entries for the other
>> virtual address ranges.
>
> Why do you want shadow for things out of the direct map? If you want
> to catch use-after-free in vmalloc than DEBUG_PAGEALLOC will be
> enough. If you want catch out-of-bounds in vmalloc you don't need
> anything, because vmalloc allocates guarding hole in the end. Or do
> you want something else?
That's all true for page-size accesses. Address sanitizer's biggest
advantage over using the page tables is that it can do checks at
sub-page granularity. But, we don't have any APIs that I can think of
that _care_ about <PAGE_SIZE outside of the direct map (maybe zsmalloc,
but that's pretty obscure).
So I guess it doesn't matter.
--
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