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]

Message-ID: <80f2f6f7-0a37-53dc-843e-1adbed4377fa@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2017 19:31:53 +0300
From:   Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
CC:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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 05/31/2017 08:50 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I don't see how above is relevant for 32-bit arches. Current design
>> is perfectly fine for 32-bit arches. I did some POC arm32 port couple years
>> ago - https://github.com/aryabinin/linux/commits/kasan/arm_v0_1
>> It has some ugly hacks and non-critical bugs. AFAIR it also super-slow because I (mistakenly) 
>> made shadow memory uncached. But otherwise it works.
> 
> Could you explain that where is the code to map shadow memory uncached?
> I don't find anything related to it.
> 

I didn't set set any cache policy (L_PTE_MT_*) on shadow mapping (see set_pte_at() calls )
which means it's L_PTE_MT_UNCACHED 

>>> 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.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>  
>> I don't understand why we trying to invent some hacky/complex schemes when we already have
>> a simple one - scaling shadow to 1/32. It's easy to implement and should be more performant comparing
>> to suggested schemes.
> 
> My approach can co-exist with changing scaling approach. It has it's
> own benefit.
> 
> And, as Dmitry mentioned before, scaling shadow to 1/32 also has downsides,
> expecially for inline instrumentation. And, it requires compiler
> modification and user needs to update their compiler to newer version
> which is not so simple in terms of the user's usability
> 
> Thanks.
>