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  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:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:05:18 +0100
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
        Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@....com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] kasan: adopt kmalloc_uaf2 test to HW_TAGS mode

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:39 PM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 07:27PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > In the kmalloc_uaf2() test, the pointers to the two allocated memory
> > blocks might be the same, and the test will fail. With the software
> > tag-based mode, the probability of the that happening is 1/254, so it's
> > hard to observe the failure. For the hardware tag-based mode though,
> > the probablity is 1/14, which is quite noticable.
> >
> > Allow up to 4 attempts at generating different tags for the tag-based
> > modes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
> > Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/Ibfa458ef2804ff465d8eb07434a300bf36388d55
> > ---
> >  lib/test_kasan.c | 9 +++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/test_kasan.c b/lib/test_kasan.c
> > index b5077a47b95a..b67da7f6e17f 100644
> > --- a/lib/test_kasan.c
> > +++ b/lib/test_kasan.c
> > @@ -375,7 +375,9 @@ static void kmalloc_uaf2(struct kunit *test)
> >  {
> >       char *ptr1, *ptr2;
> >       size_t size = 43;
> > +     int counter = 0;
> >
> > +again:
> >       ptr1 = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >       KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ptr1);
> >
> > @@ -384,6 +386,13 @@ static void kmalloc_uaf2(struct kunit *test)
> >       ptr2 = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >       KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ptr2);
> >
> > +     /*
> > +      * For tag-based KASAN ptr1 and ptr2 tags might happen to be the same.
> > +      * Allow up to 4 attempts at generating different tags.
> > +      */
> > +     if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KASAN_GENERIC) && ptr1 == ptr2 && counter++ < 4)
> > +             goto again;
> > +
>
> Why do we even need a limit? Why not retry until ptr1 != ptr2?

Then the test will hang if it's failing. Let's do up to 16 attempts,
it should be more than enough in practice. Thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists