linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] kasan: add memory corruption identification for software tag-based mode

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:   Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:52:10 +0300
From:   Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Walter Wu <walter-zh.wu@...iatek.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Miles Chen <miles.chen@...iatek.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        wsd_upstream <wsd_upstream@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kasan: add memory corruption identification for
 software tag-based mode



On 7/26/19 3:28 PM, Walter Wu wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-07-26 at 15:00 +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> I remember that there are already the lists which you concern. Maybe we
>>> can try to solve those problems one by one.
>>>
>>> 1. deadlock issue? cause by kmalloc() after kfree()?
>>
>> smp_call_on_cpu()
> 
>>> 2. decrease allocation fail, to modify GFP_NOWAIT flag to GFP_KERNEL?
>>
>> No, this is not gonna work. Ideally we shouldn't have any allocations there.
>> It's not reliable and it hurts performance.
>>
> I dont know this meaning, we need create a qobject and put into
> quarantine, so may need to call kmem_cache_alloc(), would you agree this
> action?
> 

How is this any different from what you have now?