linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH v2 02/10] x86

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <5411339E.8080007@samsung.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:31:10 +0400
From:	Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@...sung.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	Konstantin Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
	Dmitry Chernenkov <dmitryc@...gle.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <adech.fo@...il.com>,
	Yuri Gribov <tetra2005@...il.com>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v2 02/10] x86_64: add KASan support

On 09/11/2014 08:01 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/10/2014 07:31 AM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> This patch add arch specific code for kernel address sanitizer.
>>
>> 16TB of virtual addressed used for shadow memory.
>> It's located in range [0xffff800000000000 - 0xffff900000000000]
>> Therefore PAGE_OFFSET has to be changed from 0xffff880000000000
>> to 0xffff900000000000.
> 
> NAK on this.
> 
> 0xffff880000000000 is the lowest usable address because we have agreed
> to leave 0xffff800000000000-0xffff880000000000 for the hypervisor or
> other non-OS uses.
> 
> Bumping PAGE_OFFSET seems needlessly messy, why not just designate a
> zone higher up in memory?
> 

I already answered to Dave why I choose to place shadow bellow PAGE_OFFSET (answer copied bellow).
In short - yes, shadow could be higher. But for some sort of kernel bugs we could have confusing oopses in kasan kernel.

On 09/11/2014 12:30 AM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> 2014-09-10 19:46 GMT+04:00 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>:
>>
>> Is there a reason this has to be _below_ the linear map?  Couldn't we
>> just carve some space out of the vmalloc() area for the kasan area?
>>
>
> Yes, there is a reason for this. For inline instrumentation we need to
> catch access to userspace without any additional check.
> This means that we need shadow of 1 << 61 bytes and we don't have so
> many addresses available. However, we could use
> hole between userspace and kernelspace for that. For any address
> between [0 - 0xffff800000000000], shadow address will be
> in this hole, so checking shadow value will produce general protection
> fault (GPF). We may even try handle GPF in a special way
> and print more user-friendly report (this will be under CONFIG_KASAN of course).
>
> But now I realized that we even if we put shadow in vmalloc, shadow
> addresses  corresponding to userspace addresses
> still will be in between userspace - kernelspace, so we also will get GPF.
> There is the only problem I see now in such approach. Lets consider
> that because of some bug in kernel we are trying to access
> memory slightly bellow 0xffff800000000000. In this case kasan will try
> to check some shadow which in fact is not a shadow byte at all.
> It's not a big deal though, kernel will crash anyway. In only means
> that debugging of such problems could be a little more complex
> than without kasan.
>
>

--
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/