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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5679A0CB.3060707@labbott.name>
Date:	Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:13:15 -0800
From:	Laura Abbott <laura@...bott.name>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [RFC][PATCH 6/7] mm: Add Kconfig option for
 slab sanitization

On 12/22/15 10:19 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 10:08 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>> Why would you use zeros? The point is just to clear the information right?
>>>> The regular poisoning does that.
>>>
>>> It then allows you to avoid the zeroing at allocation time.
>>
>> Well much of the code is expecting a zeroed object from the allocator and
>> its zeroed at that time. Zeroing makes the object cache hot which is an
>> important performance aspect.
>
> Yes, modifying this behavior has a performance impact.  It absolutely
> needs to be evaluated, and I wouldn't want to speculate too much on how
> good or bad any of the choices are.
>
> Just to reiterate, I think we have 3 real choices here:
>
> 1. Zero at alloc, only when __GFP_ZERO
>     (behavior today)
> 2. Poison at free, also Zero at alloc (when __GFP_ZERO)
>     (this patch's proposed behavior, also what current poisoning does,
>      doubles writes)
> 3. Zero at free, *don't* Zero at alloc (when __GFP_ZERO)
>     (what I'm suggesting, possibly less perf impact vs. #2)
>
>

poisoning with non-zero memory makes it easier to determine that the error
came from accessing the sanitized memory vs. some other case. I don't think
the feature would be as strong if the memory was only zeroed vs. some other
data value.

Thanks,
Laura
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ