linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] rcu/kasan: record and print call

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1589361771.15912.3.camel@mtksdccf07>
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 17:22:51 +0800
From:   Walter Wu <walter-zh.wu@...iatek.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
CC:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux ARM" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] rcu/kasan: record and print call_rcu() call stack

On Wed, 2020-05-13 at 11:16 +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:05 AM Walter Wu <walter-zh.wu@...iatek.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2020-05-13 at 08:51 +0200, 'Dmitry Vyukov' via kasan-dev wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 3:48 AM Walter Wu <walter-zh.wu@...iatek.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Are you sure it will increase object size?
> > > > > > > I think we overlap kasan_free_meta with the object as well. The only
> > > > > > > case we don't overlap kasan_free_meta with the object are
> > > > > > > SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU || cache->ctor. But these are rare and it should
> > > > > > > only affect small objects with small redzones.
> > > > > > > And I think now we simply have a bug for these objects, we check
> > > > > > > KASAN_KMALLOC_FREE and then assume object contains free stack, but for
> > > > > > > objects with ctor, they still contain live object data, we don't store
> > > > > > > free stack in them.
> > > > > > > Such objects can be both free and still contain user data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Overlay kasan_free_meta. I see. but overlay it only when the object was
> > > > > > freed. kasan_free_meta will be used until free object.
> > > > > > 1). When put object into quarantine, it need kasan_free_meta.
> > > > > > 2). When the object exit from quarantine, it need kasan_free_meta
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we choose to overlay kasan_free_meta, then the free stack will be
> > > > > > stored very late. It may has no free stack in report.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why will it be stored too late?
> > > > > In __kasan_slab_free() putting into quarantine and recording free
> > > > > stack are literally adjacent lines of code:
> > > > >
> > > > > static bool __kasan_slab_free(struct kmem_cache *cache, void *object,
> > > > >       unsigned long ip, bool quarantine)
> > > > > {
> > > > >     ...
> > > > >     kasan_set_free_info(cache, object, tag);
> > > > >     quarantine_put(get_free_info(cache, object), cache);
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just to make sure, what I meant is that we add free_track to kasan_free_meta:
> > > > >
> > > > > struct kasan_free_meta {
> > > > >     struct qlist_node quarantine_link;
> > > > > +  struct kasan_track free_track;
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > When I see above struct kasan_free_meta, I know why you don't understand
> > > > my meaning, because I thought you were going to overlay the
> > > > quarantine_link by free_track, but it seems like to add free_track to
> > > > kasan_free_meta. Does it enlarge meta-data size?
> > >
> > > I would assume it should not increase meta-data size. In both cases we
> > > store exactly the same information inside of the object: quarantine
> > > link and free track.
> > > I see it more as a question of code organization. We already have a
> > > concept of "this data is placed inside of the freed object", we
> > > already have a name for it (kasan_free_meta), we already have code to
> > > choose where to place it, we already have helper functions to access
> > > it. And your change effectively duplicates all of this to place the
> > > free track.
> > >
> >
> > I want to make a summary. Which of the following is the approach we
> > want? or if I have some misunderstandings, please help me to correct.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > 1) For different object, then it will has two ways.
> > 1.a) When object are LAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU || cache->ctor, then store free
> > stack into free track of struct kasan_free_meta.
> > 2.b) Except 1.a), store free stack into freed object.
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2) We always store free stack into free track of struct kasan_free_meta
> 
> I meant 2): We always store free stack into free track of struct
> kasan_free_meta.
> I think it will do the same as other options but just with less code
> (and simpler code).
> 
> Maybe I am missing something here?
> 

You are right, I only make a final confirmation with you. Now there
should be no problems, I will try to implement it.

Thank you for your good suggestion.

> 
> 
> 
> > > > > And I think its life-time and everything should be exactly what we need.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also it should help to fix the problem with ctors: kasan_free_meta is
> > > > > already allocated on the side for such objects, and that's exactly
> > > > > what we need for objects with ctor's.
> > > >
> > > > I see.