linux-kernel - Re: [v6 11/15] arm64/kasan: explicitly zero kasan shadow memory

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:   Tue, 8 Aug 2017 09:30:58 -0400
From:   Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "sam@...nborg.org" <sam@...nborg.org>,
        "borntraeger@...ibm.com" <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "heiko.carstens@...ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kasan-dev@...glegroups.com" <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "mhocko@...nel.org" <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>,
        "sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [v6 11/15] arm64/kasan: explicitly zero kasan shadow memory

On 2017-08-08 09:15, David Laight wrote:
> From: Pasha Tatashin
>> Sent: 08 August 2017 12:49
>> Thank you for looking at this change. What you described was in my
>> previous iterations of this project.
>>
>> See for example here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/5/369
>>
>> I was asked to remove that flag, and only zero memory in place when
>> needed. Overall the current approach is better everywhere else in the
>> kernel, but it adds a little extra code to kasan initialization.
> 
> Perhaps you could #define the function prototype(s?) so that the flags
> are not passed unless it is a kasan build?
> 

Hi David,

Thank you for suggestion. I think a kasan specific vmemmap (what I 
described in the previous e-mail) would be a better solution over having 
different prototypes with different builds.  It would be cleaner to have 
all kasan specific code in one place.

Pasha