linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] asm-generic, x86: Add bitops instrumentation for KASAN

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, 29 May 2019 12:16:31 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] asm-generic, x86: Add bitops instrumentation for KASAN

On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 12:01, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 11:20:17AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > For the default, we decided to err on the conservative side for now,
> > since it seems that e.g. x86 operates only on the byte the bit is on.
>
> This is not correct, see for instance set_bit():
>
> static __always_inline void
> set_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
> {
>         if (IS_IMMEDIATE(nr)) {
>                 asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "orb %1,%0"
>                         : CONST_MASK_ADDR(nr, addr)
>                         : "iq" ((u8)CONST_MASK(nr))
>                         : "memory");
>         } else {
>                 asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX __ASM_SIZE(bts) " %1,%0"
>                         : : RLONG_ADDR(addr), "Ir" (nr) : "memory");
>         }
> }
>
> That results in:
>
>         LOCK BTSQ nr, (addr)
>
> when @nr is not an immediate.

Thanks for the clarification. Given that arm64 already instruments
bitops access to whole words, and x86 may also do so for some bitops,
it seems fine to instrument word-sized accesses by default. Is that
reasonable?