linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 00/11] mm/kasan: support per-page shadow memory to reduce memory consumption

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]

Date:   Tue, 30 May 2017 11:26:55 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>
Cc:     Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/11] mm/kasan: support per-page shadow memory to
 reduce memory consumption

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Vladimir Murzin
<vladimir.murzin@....com> wrote:
>> <vladimir.murzin@....com> wrote:
>>> On 30/05/17 09:31, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
>>>> [This sender failed our fraud detection checks and may not be who they appear to be. Learn about spoofing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSpoofing]
>>>>
>>>> On 30/05/17 09:15, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Vladimir Murzin
>>>>> <vladimir.murzin@....com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/05/17 16:29, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>>>>> I have an alternative proposal. It should be conceptually simpler and
>>>>>>> also less arch-dependent. But I don't know if I miss something
>>>>>>> important that will render it non working.
>>>>>>> Namely, we add a pointer to shadow to the page struct. Then, create a
>>>>>>> slab allocator for 512B shadow blocks. Then, attach/detach these
>>>>>>> shadow blocks to page structs as necessary. It should lead to even
>>>>>>> smaller memory consumption because we won't need a whole shadow page
>>>>>>> when only 1 out of 8 corresponding kernel pages are used (we will need
>>>>>>> just a single 512B block). I guess with some fragmentation we need
>>>>>>> lots of excessive shadow with the current proposed patch.
>>>>>>> This does not depend on TLB in any way and does not require hooking
>>>>>>> into buddy allocator.
>>>>>>> The main downside is that we will need to be careful to not assume
>>>>>>> that shadow is continuous. In particular this means that this mode
>>>>>>> will work only with outline instrumentation and will need some ifdefs.
>>>>>>> Also it will be slower due to the additional indirection when
>>>>>>> accessing shadow, but that's meant as "small but slow" mode as far as
>>>>>>> I understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the main win as I see it is that that's basically complete support
>>>>>>> for 32-bit arches. People do ask about arm32 support:
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/kasan-dev/Sk6BsSPMRRc/Gqh4oD_wAAAJ
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/kasan-dev/B22vOFp-QWg/EVJPbrsgAgAJ
>>>>>>> and probably mips32 is relevant as well.
>>>>>>> Such mode does not require a huge continuous address space range, has
>>>>>>> minimal memory consumption and requires minimal arch-dependent code.
>>>>>>> Works only with outline instrumentation, but I think that's a
>>>>>>> reasonable compromise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .. or you can just keep shadow in page extension. It was suggested back in
>>>>>> 2015 [1], but seems that lack of stack instrumentation was "no-way"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/24/573
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. It describes basically the same idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> How is page_ext better than adding data page struct?
>>>>
>>>> page_ext is already here along with some other debug options ;)
>>
>>
>> But page struct is also here. What am I missing?
>>
>
> Probably, free room in page struct? I guess most of the page_ext stuff would
> love to live in page struct, but... for instance, look at page idle tracking
> which has to live in page_ext only for 32-bit.


Sorry for my ignorance. What's the fundamental problem with just
pushing everything into page struct?

I don't see anything relevant in page struct comment. Nor I see "idle"
nor "tracking" page struct. I see only 2 mentions of CONFIG_64BIT, but
both declare the same fields just with different types (int vs short).



>>>>> It seems that memory for all page_ext is preallocated along with page
>>>>> structs; but just the lookup is slower.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup. Lookup would look like (based on v4.0):
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> page_ext = lookup_page_ext_begin(virt_to_page(start));
>>>>
>>>> do {
>>>>         page_ext->shadow[idx++] = value;
>>>> } while (idx < bound);
>>>>
>>>> lookup_page_ext_end((void *)page_ext);
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Correction: please, ignore that *_{begin,end} stuff - mainline only
>>> lookup_page_ext() is only used.
>>
>>
>> Note that this added code will be executed during handling of each and
>> every memory access in kernel. Every instruction matters on that path.
>
> I know, I know... still better than nothing.
>
>> The additional indirection via page struct will also slow down it, but
>> that's the cost for lower memory consumption and potentially 32-bit
>> support. For page_ext it looks like even more overhead for no gain.
>>
>
> eefa864 (mm/page_ext: resurrect struct page extending code for debugging)
> express some cases where keeping data in page_ext has benefit.
>
> Cheers
> Vladimir