linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mm v4 29/39] kasan, page_alloc: allow skipping memory init for HW

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+fCnZdk1gksiMMJVMe-fb56_4ZFUaaOLa4EZx0RCSR-3xd4AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Dec 2021 20:11:35 +0100
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     andrey.konovalov@...ux.dev,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm v4 29/39] kasan, page_alloc: allow skipping memory init
 for HW_TAGS

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:12 PM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:02PM +0100, andrey.konovalov@...ux.dev wrote:
> > From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
> [...]
> > +static inline bool should_skip_init(gfp_t flags)
> > +{
> > +     /* Don't skip if a software KASAN mode is enabled. */
> > +     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KASAN_GENERIC) ||
> > +         IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS))
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     /* Don't skip, if hardware tag-based KASAN is not enabled. */
> > +     if (!kasan_hw_tags_enabled())
> > +             return false;
>
> Why is the IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KASAN_{GENERIC,SW_TAGS}) check above
> required? Isn't kasan_hw_tags_enabled() always false if one of those is
> configured?

It is. I wanted to include those checks for completeness, but maybe
they just cause confusion instead. Will drop them in v5. Thanks!