linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] x86, kasan: add KASAN checks to atomic operations

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:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:28:58 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, mark.rutland@....com,
        peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
        aryabinin@...tuozzo.com, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] x86, kasan: add KASAN checks to atomic operations


* Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:

> Hi Dmitry,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 06:26:03PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > KASAN uses compiler instrumentation to intercept all memory accesses.
> > But it does not see memory accesses done in assembly code.
> > One notable user of assembly code is atomic operations. Frequently,
> > for example, an atomic reference decrement is the last access to an
> > object and a good candidate for a racy use-after-free.
> > 
> > Atomic operations are defined in arch files, but KASAN instrumentation
> > is required for several archs that support KASAN. Later we will need
> > similar hooks for KMSAN (uninit use detector) and KTSAN (data race
> > detector).
> > 
> > This change introduces wrappers around atomic operations that can be
> > used to add KASAN/KMSAN/KTSAN instrumentation across several archs,
> > and adds KASAN checks to them.
> > 
> > This patch uses the wrappers only for x86 arch. Arm64 will be switched
> > later. And we also plan to instrument bitops in a similar way.
> 
> One way you could reduce the intrusivness for each architecture would be
> to leave the existing macro names as-is, and redefine them in the
> asm-generic header. It's certainly ugly, but it makes the porting work
> a lot smaller. Apologies if you've considered this approach before, but
> I figured it was worth mentioning just in case.
> 
> e.g. for atomic[64]_read, your asm-generic header looks like:
> 
> #ifndef _LINUX_ATOMIC_INSTRUMENTED_H
> #define _LINUX_ATOMIC_INSTRUMENTED_H
> 
> #include <linux/build_bug.h>
> #include <linux/kasan-checks.h>
> 
> static __always_inline int __atomic_read_instrumented(const atomic_t *v)
> {
> 	kasan_check_read(v, sizeof(*v));
> 	return atomic_read(v);
> }
> 
> static __always_inline s64 __atomic64_read_instrumented(const atomic64_t *v)
> {
> 	kasan_check_read(v, sizeof(*v));
> 	return atomic64_read(v);
> }
> 
> #undef atomic_read
> #undef atomic64_read
> 
> #define atomic_read	__atomic_read_instrumented
> #define atomic64_read	__atomic64_read_instrumented
> 
> #endif /* _LINUX_ATOMIC_INSTRUMENTED_H */
> 
> and the arch code just includes that in asm/atomic.h once it's done with
> its definitions.
> 
> What do you think? Too stinky?

Hm, so while this could work - I actually *like* the low level changes: they are 
straightforward, trivial, easy to read and they add the arch_ prefix that makes it 
abundantly clear that this isn't the highest level interface.

The KASAN callbacks in the generic methods are also abundantly clear and very easy 
to read. I could literally verify the sanity of the series while still being only 
half awake. ;-)

Also note that the arch renaming should be 'trivial', in the sense that any 
missing rename results in a clear build breakage. Plus any architecture making use 
of this new KASAN feature should probably be tested before it's enabled - and the 
renaming of the low level atomic APIs kind of forces that too.

So while this approach creates some churn, this series is IMHO a marked 
improvement over the previous iterations.

Thanks,

	Ingo