linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Sanitization of slabs based on grsecurity/PaX

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601080806020.4128@east.gentwo.org>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:07:44 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Laura Abbott <laura@...bott.name>
cc:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Sanitization of slabs based on grsecurity/PaX

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Laura Abbott wrote:

> The slub_debug=P not only poisons it enables other consistency checks on the
> slab as well, assuming my understanding of what check_object does is correct.
> My hope was to have the poison part only and none of the consistency checks in
> an attempt to mitigate performance issues. I misunderstood when the checks
> actually run and how SLUB_DEBUG was used.

Ok I see that there pointer check is done without checking the
corresponding debug flag. Patch attached thar fixes it.

> Another option would be to have a flag like SLAB_NO_SANITY_CHECK.
> sanitization enablement would just be that and SLAB_POISON
> in the debug options. The disadvantage to this approach would be losing
> the sanitization for ->ctor caches (the grsecurity version works around this
> by re-initializing with ->ctor, I haven't heard any feedback if this actually
> acceptable) and not having some of the fast paths enabled
> (assuming I'm understanding the code path correctly.) which would also
> be a performance penalty

I think we simply need to fix the missing check there. There is already a
flag SLAB_DEBUG_FREE for the pointer checks.



Subject: slub: Only perform pointer checks in check_object when SLAB_DEBUG_FREE is set

Seems that check_object() always checks for pointer issues currently.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>

Index: linux/mm/slub.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/mm/slub.c
+++ linux/mm/slub.c
@@ -848,6 +848,9 @@ static int check_object(struct kmem_cach
 		 */
 		return 1;

+	if (!(s->flags & SLAB_DEBUG_FREE))
+		return 1;
+
 	/* Check free pointer validity */
 	if (!check_valid_pointer(s, page, get_freepointer(s, p))) {
 		object_err(s, page, p, "Freepointer corrupt");