linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] kvmalloc: always use vmalloc if CONFIG_DEBUG

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, 24 Apr 2018 14:41:47 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        eric.dumazet@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kvmalloc: always use vmalloc if CONFIG_DEBUG_SG



On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:29:14AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 08:06:16PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > Some bugs (such as buffer overflows) are better detected
> > > > with kmalloc code, so we must test the kmalloc path too.
> > > 
> > > Well now, this brings up another item for the collective TODO list --
> > > implement redzone checks for vmalloc.  Unless this is something already
> > > taken care of by kasan or similar.
> > 
> > The kmalloc overflow testing is also not ideal - it rounds the size up to 
> > the next slab size and detects buffer overflows only at this boundary.
> > 
> > Some times ago, I made a "kmalloc guard" patch that places a magic number 
> > immediatelly after the requested size - so that it can detect overflows at 
> > byte boundary 
> > ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2014-September/msg00018.html )
> > 
> > That patch found a bug in crypto code:
> > ( http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1409.1/02325.html )
> 
> Is it still worth doing this, now we have kasan?

The kmalloc guard has much lower overhead than kasan.

(BTW. when I tried kasan, it oopsed with persistent memory)

Mikulas