linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] ipc subsystem refcounter conversions

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKNChaVdfbM171FYkvY1hUMXG6cp-=WAdXBP0eTOO5RAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 May 2017 12:58:14 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, arozansk@...hat.com,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ipc subsystem refcounter conversions

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 13:29:46 +0200 Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> Now when new refcount_t type and API are finally merged
>> (see include/linux/refcount.h), the following
>> patches convert various refcounters in the ipc susystem from atomic_t
>> to refcount_t. By doing this we prevent intentional or accidental
>> underflows or overflows that can led to use-after-free vulnerabilities.
>>
>> The below patches are fully independent and can be cherry-picked separately.
>> Since we convert all kernel subsystems in the same fashion, resulting
>> in about 300 patches, we have to group them for sending at least in some
>> fashion to be manageable. Please excuse the long cc list.
>
> Again, the refcount_t operations are much more expensive than the bare
> atomic_t operations.  I'm reluctant to merge any of these conversions

Since Manfred did a recent refactor of IPC RCU, and the refcount usage
is minimal, it seemed a good time to ask after these patches again.
(And send an updated one for the refactor.)

> without either
>
> a) a convincing demonstration that the performance impact is
>    sufficiently small (ie: unmeasurable) or

I've sent a few versions of a much faster refcount implementation
which has no measurable difference to atomic_t operations (based on
the PaX implementation). Getting more eyes on that would be nice; I'll
include you on CC when I send the next version.

> b) a compile-time option to disable the refcount_t operations (make
>    them generate the same code as the bare atomic_t ops).  Along with
>    some suitably reliable means of preventing people from accidentally
>    enabling the debug code in production builds.

Since the speed-ups will likely be arch-specific, should my proposed
CONFIG_FAST_REFCOUNT be made arch-indep when no arch-specific
implementation available (via totally unchecked atomic_t ops)? i.e.:

FAST_REFCOUNT=n: use function-based refcount_t with cmpxvhg and
full-verification
FAST_REFCOUNT=y without arch-specific implementation: use atomic_t
with no verification (i.e. no functional change from now)
FAST_REFCOUNT=y with arch-specific implementation: use atomic_t with
overflow protection

which means FAST_REFCOUNT would need to be default-on so that mm,
block, net users will remain happy.

Does that sound reasonable?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security