linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Actually fix freelist pointer vs redzoning

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]

Message-ID: <1e43fd23-e9f1-9c5d-3ee2-17171642877f@suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:44:15 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Actually fix freelist pointer vs redzoning

On 10/15/20 10:23 AM, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2020, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
>> Note on patch 2: Christopher NAKed it, but I actually think this is a
>> reasonable thing to add -- the "too small" check is only made when built
>> with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM, so it *is* actually possible for someone to trip
>> over this directly, even if it would never make it into a released
>> kernel. I see no reason to just leave this foot-gun in place, though, so
>> we might as well just fix it too. (Which seems to be what Longman was
>> similarly supporting, IIUC.)
> 
> Well then remove the duplication of checks. The NAK was there because it
> seems that you were not aware of the existing checks.
> 
>> Anyway, if patch 2 stays NAKed, that's fine. It's entirely separable,
>> and the other 2 can land. :)
> 
> Just deal with the old checks too and it will be fine.

Yeah, the existing check is under CONFIG_DEBUG_VM, which means it's not active 
on some configurations. Creating a cache is not exactly fast path operation, so 
I would remove this guard.
As for the minimum size check, I would probably remove it (but watch out if 
SLAB/SLOB can handle it). It's not effective to use slab cache for 4-byte 
objects, but why make it an error.