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 10:38:20 +0300
From:	Andrey Ryabinin <>
To:	Ingo Molnar <>
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()

On 10/06/2015 10:26 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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.

I'm mistaken here. It was broken once, at some point of development of gcc 5, but this was fixed
eventually. I just checked gcc 5.2, 4.9.2, 4.8.4, all of them are ok.

> So unless KASAN wants to do something special here you can rely on sections just 
> fine.
> Thanks,
> 	Ingo
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