linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] Add the extra_latent

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: <20160524222901.9c60f81a0e3a48df0654d5e6@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2016 22:29:01 +0200
From:	Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
	linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	bart.vanassche@...disk.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] Add the extra_latent_entropy kernel parameter

On Tue, 24 May 2016 10:09:16 -0700
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com> wrote:
> > @@ -1235,6 +1236,15 @@ static void __free_pages_ok(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> >  }
> >
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY
> > +bool __meminitdata extra_latent_entropy;
> > +
> > +static int __init setup_extra_latent_entropy(char *str)
> > +{
> > +       extra_latent_entropy = true;
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_param("extra_latent_entropy", setup_extra_latent_entropy);
> > +
> >  volatile u64 latent_entropy __latent_entropy;
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(latent_entropy);
> >  #endif
> > @@ -1254,6 +1264,19 @@ static void __init __free_pages_boot_core(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> >         __ClearPageReserved(p);
> >         set_page_count(p, 0);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY
> > +       if (extra_latent_entropy && !PageHighMem(page) && page_to_pfn(page) < 0x100000) {
> > +               u64 hash = 0;
> > +               size_t index, end = PAGE_SIZE * nr_pages / sizeof hash;
> > +               const u64 *data = lowmem_page_address(page);
> > +
> > +               for (index = 0; index < end; index++)
> > +                       hash ^= hash + data[index];
> > +               latent_entropy ^= hash;
> > +               add_device_randomness((const void *)&latent_entropy, sizeof(latent_entropy));
> > +       }
> > +#endif
> > +
> 
> We try to minimize #ifdefs in the .c code, so in this case, I think I
> would define "extra_latent_entropy" during an #else above so this "if"
> can be culled by the compiler automatically:
> 
> #else
> # define extra_latent_entropy false
> #endif
> 
> Others may have better suggestions to avoid the second #ifdef, but
> this seems the cleanest way to me to tie this to the earlier #ifdef.

Hi,

I think the best way would be if I removed all #ifdefs because
this is useful without the latent_entropy plugin.
I don't know wether the default value of extra_latent_entropy
should be true or false. I'll do some performance measurements.

-- 
Emese