linux-kernel - Re: *alloc API changes

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:   Mon, 7 May 2018 09:03:54 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: *alloc API changes

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 4:39 AM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 09:24:56PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 8:46 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>> The only fear I have with the saturating helpers is that we'll end up
>> using them in places that don't recognize SIZE_MAX. Like, say:
>>
>> size = mul(a, b) + 1;
>>
>> then *poof* size == 0. Now, I'd hope that code would use add(mul(a,
>> b), 1), but still... it makes me nervous.
>
> That's reasonable.  So let's add:
>
> #define ALLOC_TOO_BIG   (PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER)
>
> (there's a presumably somewhat obsolete CONFIG_FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER on some
> architectures which allows people to configure MAX_ORDER all the way up
> to 64.  That config option needs to go away, or at least be limited to
> a much lower value).
>
> On x86, that's 4k << 11 = 8MB.  On PPC, that might be 64k << 9 == 32MB.
> Those values should be relatively immune to further arithmetic causing
> an additional overflow.

But we can do larger than 8MB allocations with vmalloc, can't we?

> I don't think it should go in the callers though ... where it goes in
> the allocator is up to the allocator maintainers ;-)

We need a self-test regardless, so checking that each allocator
returns NULL with the saturated value can be done.

>> > I'd rather have a mul_ab(), mul_abc(), mul_ab_add_c(), etc. than nest
>> > calls to mult().
>>
>> Agreed. I think having exactly those would cover almost everything,
>> and the two places where a 4-factor product is needed could just nest
>> them. (bikeshed: the very common mul_ab() should just be mul(), IMO.)
>>
>> > Nono, Linus had the better proposal, struct_size(p, member, n).
>>
>> Oh, yes! I totally missed that in the threads.
>
> so we're agreed on struct_size().  I think rather than the explicit 'mul',
> perhaps we should have array_size() and array3_size().

I do like the symmetry there. My earlier "what if someone does +1"
continues to scratch at my brain, though I think it's likely
unimportant: there's no indication (in the name) that these calls
saturate. Will someone ever do something crazy like: array_size(a, b)
/ array_size(c, d) and they can, effectively, a truncated value (if
"a, b" saturated and "c, d" didn't...)?

>> Right, no. I think if we can ditch *calloc() and _array() by using
>> saturating helpers, we'll have the API in a much better form:
>>
>> kmalloc(foo * bar, GFP_KERNEL);
>> into
>> kmalloc_array(foo, bar, GFP_KERNEL);
>> into
>> kmalloc(mul(foo, bar), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> kmalloc(array_size(foo, bar), GFP_KERNEL);

I can't come up with a better name. :P When it was "mul()" I was
thinking "smul()" for "saturating multiply". sarray_size() seems ...
bonkers.

> I think we're broadly in agreement here!

Do we want addition helpers? (And division and subtraction?)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security