linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, kasan: add KASAN checks to atomic operations

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: <CACT4Y+ahGRxn7j8ZX=rTbwGm_eie-Wy81nKg9RGwjHzodFCK8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:45:58 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, kasan: add KASAN checks to atomic operations

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 04:27:11PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>> > As in my other reply, I'd prefer that we wrapped the (arch-specific)
>> > atomic implementations such that we can instrument them explicitly in a
>> > core header. That means that the implementation and semantics of the
>> > atomics don't change at all.
>> >
>> > Note that we could initially do this just for x86 and arm64), e.g. by
>> > having those explicitly include an <asm-generic/atomic-instrumented.h>
>> > at the end of their <asm/atomic.h>.
>>
>> How exactly do you want to do this incrementally?
>> I don't feel ready to shuffle all archs, but doing x86 in one patch
>> and then arm64 in another looks tractable.
>
> I guess we'd have three patches: one adding the header and any core
> infrastructure, followed by separate patches migrating arm64 and x86
> over.

But if we add e.g. atomic_read() which forwards to arch_atomic_read()
to <linux/atomic.h>, it will break all archs that don't rename its
atomic_read() to arch_atomic_read().