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:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:26:55 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <>
To:	Andrey Ryabinin <>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	"" <>,
	LKML <>,
	Andy Lutomirski <>,
	Andrey Konovalov <>,
	Kostya Serebryany <>,
	Alexander Potapenko <>,
	kasan-dev <>,
	Borislav Petkov <>,
	Denys Vlasenko <>,
	Sasha Levin <>,
	Wolfram Gloger <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/process: Silence KASAN warnings in get_wchan()

* Andrey Ryabinin <> wrote:

> On 10/05/2015 07:39 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> But, I think I have the solution.
> >> We could have some blacklist - list of function names which we should be ignored.
> >> In kasan_report() we could resolve return address to function name and compare it with name in list.
> >> If name in list -> ignore report.
> > 
> > I think annotating statements is cleaner than functions, even if it
> > is more code. Much better documentation
> > 
> I agree with that, that's why I suggested to add READ_ONCE_NOCHECK():
> 	{
> 		kasan_disable_current();
> 		READ_ONCE();
> 		kasan_enable_current();
> 	}
> Anywone objects?

Sounds good to me! As long as it's hidden from plain .c files I'm a happy camper.

This should probably also be faster for KASAN than triggering a warning and having 
to parse a blacklist, right?

> > If disabling with an attribute doesn't work, you could put it into a special 
> > section with __attribute__((section ...)) and check the start/end symbol 
> > before reporting. That's how kprobes solves similar issues. It also has the 
> > advantage that it stops inlining.
> Yes, it might be better. Although, because of broken -fconserve-stack, this may 
> not work in some cases - 
> Function splitter may split original function into two parts and it always puts 
> one split part in default .text section.

We do a _ton_ of such section tricks in the kernel (all of exception handling is 
based on that) - if that's broken by -fconserve-stack then the kernel is broken 
much more widely.

So unless KASAN wants to do something special here you can rely on sections just 


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists