[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180803092312.GA17798@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 10:23:13 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@...gle.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Chintan Pandya <cpandya@...eaurora.org>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@....com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@....com>,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@....com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Mark Brand <markbrand@...gle.com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/17] khwasan: kernel hardware assisted address
sanitizer
On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 06:52:09PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> > Thanks for tracking these cases down and going through each of them. The
> > obvious follow-up question is: how do we ensure that we keep on top of
> > this in mainline? Are you going to repeat your experiment at every kernel
> > release or every -rc or something else? I really can't see how we can
> > maintain this in the long run, especially given that the coverage we have
> > is only dynamic -- do you have an idea of how much coverage you're actually
> > getting for, say, a defconfig+modules build?
> >
> > I'd really like to enable pointer tagging in the kernel, I'm just still
> > failing to see how we can do it in a controlled manner where we can reason
> > about the semantic changes using something other than a best-effort,
> > case-by-case basis which is likely to be fragile and error-prone.
> > Unfortunately, if that's all we have, then this gets relegated to a
> > debug feature, which sort of defeats the point in my opinion.
>
> Well, in some cases there is no other way as resorting to dynamic testing.
> How do we ensure that kernel does not dereference NULL pointers, does
> not access objects after free or out of bounds? Nohow. And, yes, it's
> constant maintenance burden resolved via dynamic testing.
... and the advantage of NULL pointer issues is that you're likely to see
them as a synchronous exception at runtime, regardless of architecture and
regardless of Kconfig options. With pointer tagging, that's certainly not
the case, and so I don't think we can just treat issues there like we do for
NULL pointers.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists