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: <56971AE1.1020706@labbott.name>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:49:53 -0800
From:	Laura Abbott <laura@...bott.name>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
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 1/8/16 6:07 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.
>
>

The patch improves performance but the overall performance of these full
sanitization patches is still significantly better than slub_debug=P. I'll
put some effort into seeing if I can figure out where the slow down is
coming from.

Thanks,
Laura

>
> 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");
>