[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57274ADA.8060606@emindsoft.com.cn>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 20:40:58 +0800
From: Chen Gang <chengang@...ndsoft.com.cn>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] include/linux/kasan.h: Notice about 0 for kasan_[dis/en]able_current()
On 5/2/16 19:23, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Chen Gang <chengang@...ndsoft.com.cn> wrote:
>> On 5/2/16 18:49, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:35 AM, <chengang@...ndsoft.com.cn> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> According to their comments and the kasan_depth's initialization, if
>>>> kasan_depth is zero, it means disable. So kasan_depth need consider
>>>> about the 0 overflow.
>>>>
>>>> Also remove useless comments for dummy kasan_slab_free().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@...il.com>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
> Nacked-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
>>>
>>
>> OK, thanks.
> Well, on a second thought I take that back, there still might be problems.
> I haven't noticed the other CL, and was too hasty reviewing this one.
>
> As kasan_disable_current() and kasan_enable_current() always go
> together, we need to prevent nested calls to them from breaking
> everything.
> If we ignore some calls to kasan_disable_current() to prevent
> overflows, the pairing calls to kasan_enable_current() will bring
> |current->kasan_depth| to an invalid state.
>
> E.g. if I'm understanding your idea correctly, after the following
> sequence of calls:
> kasan_disable_current(); // #1
> kasan_disable_current(); // #2
> kasan_enable_current(); // #3
> kasan_enable_current(); // #4
>
> the value of |current->kasan_depth| will be 2, so a single subsequent
> call to kasan_disable_current() won't disable KASAN.
>
> I think we'd better add BUG checks to bail out if the value of
> |current->kasan_depth| is too big or too small.
>
For me, BUG_ON is OK. e.g.
- BUG_ON(!kasan_depth) as soon as be in kasan_enable_current().
- BUG_ON(!(kasan_depth - 1)) as soon as be in kasan_disable_current().
Welcome another members ideas, if no any additional reply within 3 days,
I shall send patch v2 for it.
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang (陈刚)
Managing Natural Environments is the Duty of Human Beings.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists