linux-kernel - Re: suspicious __GFP

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: <CAGH-Kgt_9So8bDe=yDF3yLZHDfDgeXsnBEu_X6uE_nQnoi=5Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:45:56 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jeff Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: suspicious __GFP_NOMEMALLOC in selinux

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> while doing something completely unrelated to selinux I've noticed a
> really strange __GFP_NOMEMALLOC usage pattern in selinux, especially
> GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC doesn't make much sense to me. GFP_ATOMIC
> on its own allows to access memory reserves while the later flag tells
> we cannot use memory reserves at all. The primary usecase for
> __GFP_NOMEMALLOC is to override a global PF_MEMALLOC should there be a
> need.
>
> It all leads to fa1aa143ac4a ("selinux: extended permissions for
> ioctls") which doesn't explain this aspect so let me ask. Why is the
> flag used at all? Moreover shouldn't GFP_ATOMIC be actually GFP_NOWAIT.
> What makes this path important to access memory reserves?

[NOTE: added the SELinux list to the CC line, please include that list
when asking SELinux questions]

The GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOMEMALLOC use in SELinux appears to be limited
to security/selinux/avc.c, and digging a bit, I'm guessing commit
fa1aa143ac4a copied the combination from 6290c2c43973 ("selinux: tag
avc cache alloc as non-critical") and the avc_alloc_node() function.

I can't say that I'm an expert at the vm subsystem and the variety of
different GFP_* flags, but your suggestion of moving to GFP_NOWAIT in
security/selinux/avc.c seems reasonable and in keeping with the idea
behind commit 6290c2c43973.

-- 
paul moore
security @ redhat