linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kasan: convert kasan/quarantine_lock to raw

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]

Message-ID: <20181009142742.ikh7xv2dn5skjjbe@linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 16:27:42 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan: convert kasan/quarantine_lock to raw_spinlock

On 2018-10-08 11:15:57 [+0200], Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
Hi Dmitry,

> This seems to beak quarantine_remove_cache( ) in the sense that some
> object from the cache may still be in quarantine when
> quarantine_remove_cache() returns. When quarantine_remove_cache()
> returns all objects from the cache must be purged from quarantine.
> That srcu and irq trickery is there for a reason.

That loop should behave like your on_each_cpu() except it does not
involve the remote CPU.

> This code is also on hot path of kmallock/kfree, an additional
> lock/unlock per operation is expensive. Adding 2 locked RMW per
> kmalloc is not something that should be done only out of refactoring
> reasons.
But this is debug code anyway, right? And it is highly complex imho.
Well, maybe only for me after I looked at it for the first time…

> The original message from Clark mentions that the problem can be fixed
> by just changing type of spinlock. This looks like a better and
> simpler way to resolve the problem to me.

I usually prefer to avoid adding raw_locks everywhere if it can be
avoided. However given that this is debug code and a few additional us
shouldn't matter here, I have no problem with Clark's initial patch
(also the mem-free in irq-off region works in this scenario).
Can you take it as-is or should I repost it with an acked-by?

Sebastian