Message-ID: <CACT4Y+at_NESQ8qq4zouArnu5yySQHxC2oW+RuXzqX8hyspZ_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Jun 2017 20:06:02 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.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 Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Andrey Ryabinin
<aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> On 05/29/2017 06:29 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> Joonsoo,
>>
>> I guess mine (and Andrey's) main concern is the amount of additional
>> complexity (I am still struggling to understand how it all works) and
>> more arch-dependent code in exchange for moderate memory win.
>>
>> Joonsoo, Andrey,
>>
>> 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.
>
> It seems that you are forgetting about stack instrumentation.
> You'll have to disable it completely, at least with current implementation of it in gcc.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.


If 32-bits work with the current approach, then I would also prefer to
keep things simpler.
FWIW clang supports settings shadow scale via a command line flag
(-asan-mapping-scale).

Powered by blists - more mailing lists