[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+YZZVSSNBEFYBiskEZonVBM_L==CQ2Nh06MkukzXixt2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:55:06 +0200
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: KASAN vs vmapped stacks
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Andrey Ryabinin
<aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/11/2016 01:29 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Andrey Ryabinin
>> <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/10/2016 03:47 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> Hi all-
>>>>
>>>> I found two nasty issues with virtually mapped stacks if KASAN is
>>>> enabled. The first issue is a crash: the first non-init stack is
>>>> allocated and accessed before KASAN initializes its zero shadow
>>>> AFAICT, which means that we switch to that stack and then blow up when
>>>> we start recursively faulting on failed accesses to the shadow.
>>>>
>>>
>>> KASAN initialized quite early, before any non-init task exists. The crash happens
>>> because non-init task writes to write-protected zero shadow.
>>> Currently KASAN doesn't allocate shadow memory for vmalloc addresses, we just map single
>>> zero page and write protect it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The second issue is that, even if we survive (we initialize the zero
>>>> shadow on time), KASAN will fail to protect hte stack.
>>>>
>>>> For now, I just disabled use of virtually mapped stacks if KASAN is
>>>> on. Do you have any easy ideas to fix it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Allocate shadow memory which backs vmalloc/vmap allocations is the only way to fix this.
>>> I can do this, and post the patches soon enough.
>>
>> Do you want to allocate it eagerly? Won't it consume 1/8 of vmalloc
>> range worth of physical memory?
>>
>
> I have no idea what do you mean by eager allocation.
For physical memory we preallocate whole shadow range at startup. This
consumes 1/8 of physical memory. That's what I meant by eager
allocation. Lazy allocation would be to allocate shadow for memory
when it's first allocated/used.
> What we need is to allocate shadow per vmalloc()/vmap() call if such allocation requires non-zero shadow, like stacks or modules.
> Sometimes we certainly know that the whole shadow page will contain only zeros. In such cases we can use zero page to not waste memory.
Do you want to add a gfp_t flag that says "this range requires writable shadow"?
Note that shadow for vmalloc memory will consume from 2/8 to 9/8,
because we back both virtual and physical addresses and because shadow
can be allocated only with page granularity. That's probably fine if
it is used only for kernel stacks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists