linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] kasan: support backing vmalloc space with real shadow memory

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, 2 Oct 2019 13:49:52 +0200
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
        glider@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, dvyukov@...gle.com, christophe.leroy@....fr,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, gor@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] kasan: support backing vmalloc space with real
 shadow memory

On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 11:23:06AM +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> >>  	/*
> >>  	 * Find a place in the tree where VA potentially will be
> >>  	 * inserted, unless it is merged with its sibling/siblings.
> >> @@ -741,6 +752,10 @@ merge_or_add_vmap_area(struct vmap_area *va,
> >>  		if (sibling->va_end == va->va_start) {
> >>  			sibling->va_end = va->va_end;
> >>  
> >> +			kasan_release_vmalloc(orig_start, orig_end,
> >> +					      sibling->va_start,
> >> +					      sibling->va_end);
> >> +
> > The same.
> 
> The call to kasan_release_vmalloc() is a static inline no-op if
> CONFIG_KASAN_VMALLOC is not defined, which I thought was the preferred
> way to do things rather than sprinkling the code with ifdefs?
> 
I agree that is totally correct.

> The complier should be smart enough to eliminate all the
> orig_state/orig_end stuff at compile time because it can see that it's
> not used, so there's no cost in the binary.
> 
It should. I was more thinking about if those two variables can be
considered as unused, resulting in compile warning like "set but not used".
But that is theory and in case of having any warning the test robot will
notify anyway about that.

So, i am totally fine with that if compiler does not complain. If so,
please ignore my comments :)

--
Vlad Rezki