linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] kfence: limit currently covered allocations when pool nearly full

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:28:11 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] kfence: limit currently covered allocations when
 pool nearly full

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 15:44:10 +0200 Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:

> > > > + * time, the below parameters provide a probablity of 0.02-0.33 for false
> > > > + * positive hits respectively:
> > > > + *
> > > > + *     P(alloc_traces) = (1 - e^(-HNUM * (alloc_traces / SIZE)) ^ HNUM
> > > > + */
> > > > +#define ALLOC_COVERED_HNUM     2
> > > > +#define ALLOC_COVERED_SIZE     (1 << (const_ilog2(CONFIG_KFENCE_NUM_OBJECTS) + 2))
> > > > +#define ALLOC_COVERED_HNEXT(h) (1664525 * (h) + 1013904223)
> >
> > Unless we are planning to change these primes, can you use
> > next_pseudo_random32() instead?
> 
> I'm worried about next_pseudo_random32() changing their implementation
> to longer be deterministic or change in other ways that break our
> usecase. In this case we want pseudorandomness, but we're not
> implementing a PRNG.
> 
> Open-coding the constants (given they are from "Numerical Recipes") is
> more reliable and doesn't introduce unwanted reliance on
> next_pseudo_random32()'s behaviour.

Perhaps we could summarize this in an additional comment?

Also, this:

+static u32 get_alloc_stack_hash(unsigned long *stack_entries, size_t num_entries)
+{
+	/* Some randomness across reboots / different machines. */
+	u32 seed = (u32)((unsigned long)__kfence_pool >> (BITS_PER_LONG - 32));

seems a bit weak.  Would it be better to seed this at boot time with
a randomish number?