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  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:   Sun, 25 Jun 2017 12:56:21 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <>
To:     Christoph Lameter <>,
        Andrew Morton <>
Cc:     Laura Abbott <>,
        Daniel Micay <>,
        Pekka Enberg <>,
        David Rientjes <>,
        Joonsoo Kim <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Josh Triplett <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Nicolas Pitre <>,
        Tejun Heo <>, Daniel Mack <>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <>,
        Helge Deller <>, Rik van Riel <>,
        LKML <>,
        Linux-MM <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Add SLUB free list pointer obfuscation

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Kees Cook <> wrote:
> This SLUB free list pointer obfuscation code is modified from Brad
> Spengler/PaX Team's code in the last public patch of grsecurity/PaX based
> on my understanding of the code. Changes or omissions from the original
> code are mine and don't reflect the original grsecurity/PaX code.
> This adds a per-cache random value to SLUB caches that is XORed with
> their freelist pointers. This adds nearly zero overhead and frustrates the
> very common heap overflow exploitation method of overwriting freelist
> pointers. A recent example of the attack is written up here:

BTW, to quantify "nearly zero overhead", I ran multiple 200-run cycles
of "hackbench -g 20 -l 1000", and saw:

mean 10.11882499999999999995
variance .03320378329145728642
stdev .18221905304181911048

mean 10.12654000000000000014
variance .04700556623115577889
stdev .21680767106160192064

The difference gets lost in the noise, but if the above is sensible,
it's 0.07% slower. ;)


Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Powered by blists - more mailing lists