linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] x86: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

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:   Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:15:33 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, arozansk@...hat.com,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] x86: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> Could you please also create a tabulated quick-comparison of the three variants,
> of all key properties, about behavior, feature and tradeoff differences?
>
> Something like:
>
>                                 !ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT      ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT=y     REFCOUNT_FULL=y
>
> avg fast path instructions:     5                       3                       10
> behavior on overflow:           unsafe, silent          safe,   verbose         safe,   verbose
> behavior on underflow:          unsafe, silent          unsafe, verbose         unsafe, verbose
> ...
>
> etc. - note that this table is just a quick mockup with wild guesses. (Please add
> more comparisons of other aspects as well.)
>
> Such a comparison would make it easier for arch, subsystem and distribution
> maintainers to decide on which variant to use/enable.

Sure, I can write this up. I'm not sure "safe"/"unsafe" is quite that
clean. The differences between -full and -fast are pretty subtle, but
I think I can describe it using the updated LKDTM tests I've written
to compare the two. There are conditions that -fast doesn't catch, but
those cases aren't actually useful for the overflow defense.

As for "avg fast path instructions", do you mean the resulting
assembly for each refcount API function? I think it's going to look
something like "1   2   45", but I'll write it up.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security