linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Alloc kfence

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 4 Mar 2022 19:14:45 +0100
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Alloc kfence_pool after system startup

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 03:25, Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
> On 2022/3/3 17:30, Marco Elver wrote:
>
> Thanks for your replies.
> I do see setting a large sample_interval means almost disabling KFENCE.
> In fact, my point is to provide a more “flexible” way. Since some Ops
> may be glad to use something like on/off switch than 10000ms interval. :-)

Have you already successfully caught bugs by turning KFENCE on _in
reaction_ to some suspected issues? We really do not think that
switching on KFENCE _after_ having observed a bug, especially on a
completely different machine, is at all reliable.

While your patches are appreciated, I think your usecase doesn't make
sense to us (based on our experience). I think this flexibility is
nice-to-have, so I think the justification just needs changing, to
avoid misleading other folks. Please see comments on the other
patches.

Thanks,
-- Marco