[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez0az-Mv1f6EpnQwO6cYQANwx4qCDLa+yda_i15AzciS1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 00:27:16 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/11] mm: add Kernel Electric-Fence infrastructure
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:28 PM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 21:32, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > That's another check; we don't want to make this more expensive.
> >
> > Ah, right, I missed that this is the one piece of KFENCE that is
> > actually really hot code until Dmitry pointed that out.
> >
> > But actually, can't you reduce how hot this is for SLUB by moving
> > is_kfence_address() down into the freeing slowpath? At the moment you
> > use it in slab_free_freelist_hook(), which is in the super-hot
> > fastpath, but you should be able to at least move it down into
> > __slab_free()...
> >
> > Actually, you already have hooked into __slab_free(), so can't you
> > just get rid of the check in the slab_free_freelist_hook()?
>
> I missed this bit: the loop that follows wants the free pointer, so I
> currently see how this might work. :-/
reverse call graph:
__slab_free
do_slab_free
slab_free
kmem_cache_free (frees a single non-kmalloc allocation)
kmem_cache_free_bulk (frees multiple)
kfree (frees a single kmalloc allocation)
___cache_free (frees a single allocation for KASAN)
So the only path for which we can actually loop in __slab_free() is
kmem_cache_free_bulk(); and you've already changed
build_detached_freelist() (which is used by kmem_cache_free_bulk() to
group objects from the same page) to consume KFENCE allocations before
they can ever reach __slab_free(). So we know that if we've reached
__slab_free(), then we are being called with either a single object
(which may be a KFENCE object) or with a list of objects that all
belong to the same page and don't contain any KFENCE allocations.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists