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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601210937540.7063@east.gentwo.org>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:39:19 -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

n Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Laura Abbott wrote:

> The SLAB_DEBUG flags force everything to skip the CPU caches which is
> causing the slow down. I experimented with allowing the debugging to
> happen with CPU caches but I'm not convinced it's possible to do the
> checking on the fast path in a consistent manner without adding
> locking. Is it worth refactoring the debugging to be able to be used
> on cpu caches or should I take the approach here of having the clear
> be separate from free_debug_processing?

At least posioning would benefit from such work. I think both
sanitization and posoning should be done by the same logic. Remove
poisoning if necessary.

Note though that this security stuff should not have a significant impact
on the general case.