linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/8] Hardening page

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: <CA+CK2bBbGEJa4s7HtgQkG_tZmN66UaVcDRovgLz4q+a0VGSqZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:30:25 -0400
From:   Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        william.kucharski@...cle.com,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        schmitzmic@...il.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, songmuchun@...edance.com,
        weixugc@...gle.com, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Hardening page _refcount

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 2:24 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:38:14PM +0000, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> > It is hard to root cause _refcount problems, because they usually
> > manifest after the damage has occurred.  Yet, they can lead to
> > catastrophic failures such memory corruptions.
> >
> > Improve debugability by adding more checks that ensure that
> > page->_refcount never turns negative (i.e. double free does not
> > happen, or free after freeze etc).
> >
> > - Check for overflow and underflow right from the functions that
> >   modify _refcount
> > - Remove set_page_count(), so we do not unconditionally overwrite
> >   _refcount with an unrestrained value
> > - Trace return values in all functions that modify _refcount
>
> I think this is overkill.  Won't we get exactly the same protection
> by simply testing that page->_refcount == 0 in set_page_count()?
> Anything which triggers that BUG_ON would already be buggy because
> it can race with speculative gets.

We can't because set_page_count(v) is used for
1. changing _refcount form a current value to unconstrained v
2.  initialize _refcount from undefined state to v.

In this work we forbid the first case, and reduce the second case to
initialize only to 1.

Pasha