linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] kasan: Support for r/w instrumentation control

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: <0889b8c5-0e26-2002-b015-497294fa171b@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:29:28 +0300
From:   Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
CC:     Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL BUILD + fi..." <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        PANKAJ MISHRA <pankaj.m@...sung.com>,
        Ajeet Kumar Yadav <ajeet.y@...sung.com>,
        Vaneet narang <v.narang@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kasan: Support for r/w instrumentation control



On 12/13/2016 05:13 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Andrey Ryabinin
> <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>> On 12/13/2016 12:38 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Andrey Ryabinin
>>> <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/13/2016 11:58 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kasan.rst
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kasan.rst
>>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,14 @@ similar to the following to the respective kernel Makefile:
>>>>>
>>>>>      KASAN_SANITIZE := n
>>>>>
>>>>> +Sometimes it may be useful to disable instrumentation of reads, or writes
>>>>> +or both for the entire kernel. For example, if binary size is a concern,
>>>>> +it may be useful to disable instrumentation of reads to reduce binary size but
>>>>> +still catch more harmful bugs on writes. Or, if one is interested only in
>>>>> +sanitization of a particular module and performance is a concern, she can
>>>>> +disable instrumentation of both reads and writes for kernel code.
>>>>> +Instrumentation can be disabled with CONFIG_KASAN_READS and
>>>>> CONFIG_KASAN_WRITES.
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand this. How this can be related to modules? Configs are global.
>>>> You can't just disable/enable config per module.
>>>
>>>
>>> Build everything without instrumentation. Then enable instrumentation
>>> and do "make lib/test_kasan.ko".
>>> Or build everything, copy out bzImage, change config, build everything again.
>>
>> Yeah, this is soooooo convenient...
>>
>> Seriously speaking, per-file instrumentation is absolutely irrelevant to this patch and should have been
>> addressed from a different angle. E.g. see how UBSAN/GCOV/KCOV do that.
> 
> 
> KASAN already has that functionality (i.e. KASAN_SANITIZE_main.o :=
> n). But that functionality is intended for cases when we want to
> persistently disable instrumentation of some files (e.g. if they cause
> crashes of false positives). CONFIG_KASAN_READS/WRITES is intended for
> situations when one wants to disable instrumentation wholesale.
> 

I'm talking about UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL/KCOV_INSTRUMENT_ALL/GCOV_PROFILE_ALL
KASAN doesn't have something similar. I didn't add this because IMO it's not very useful for KASAN.
One may have a bug in instrumented code, but it can be easily missed if access is done in generic
code. Very simple example is passing invalid pointer in strcpy()


> 
>> As for this patch, I'd say only one option would be enough - KASAN_DONT_SANITIZE_READS.
>> Nobody wants to sanitize only reads without writes, right? Writes are fewer and more dangerous.
> 
> I've asked this question in v1. See the case related to modules -- one
> can use completely uninstrumented kernel, but load an instrumented
> modules.
> 
I get it, but again, it's not the right way to address this problem.