linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] kfence: Allow re-enabling KFENCE after system startup

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: <ea8d18d3-b3bf-dd21-2d79-a54fe4cf5bc4@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Sat, 5 Mar 2022 13:26:35 +0800
From:   Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] kfence: Allow re-enabling KFENCE after system
 startup

On 2022/3/5 02:13, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 04:15, Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>> If once KFENCE is disabled by:
>> echo 0 > /sys/module/kfence/parameters/sample_interval
>> KFENCE could never be re-enabled until next rebooting.
>>
>> Allow re-enabling it by writing a positive num to sample_interval.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>
> 
> The only problem I see with this is if KFENCE was disabled because of
> a KFENCE_WARN_ON(). See below.
> 
>> ---
>>   mm/kfence/core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/kfence/core.c b/mm/kfence/core.c
>> index 13128fa13062..19eb123c0bba 100644
>> --- a/mm/kfence/core.c
>> +++ b/mm/kfence/core.c
>> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kfence_sample_interval); /* Export for test modules. */
>>   #endif
>>   #define MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX "kfence."
>>
>> +static int kfence_enable_late(void);
>>   static int param_set_sample_interval(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp)
>>   {
>>          unsigned long num;
>> @@ -65,10 +66,11 @@ static int param_set_sample_interval(const char *val, const struct kernel_param
>>
>>          if (!num) /* Using 0 to indicate KFENCE is disabled. */
>>                  WRITE_ONCE(kfence_enabled, false);
>> -       else if (!READ_ONCE(kfence_enabled) && system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING)
>> -               return -EINVAL; /* Cannot (re-)enable KFENCE on-the-fly. */
>>
>>          *((unsigned long *)kp->arg) = num;
>> +
>> +       if (num && !READ_ONCE(kfence_enabled) && system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING)
> 
> Should probably have an 'old_sample_interval = *((unsigned long
> *)kp->arg)' somewhere before, and add a '&& !old_sample_interval',
> because if old_sample_interval!=0 then KFENCE was disabled due to a
> KFENCE_WARN_ON(). Also in this case, it should return -EINVAL. So you
> want a flow like this:
> 
> old_sample_interval = ...;
> ...
> if (num && !READ_ONCE(kfence_enabled) && system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING)
>    return old_sample_interval ? -EINVAL : kfence_enable_late();
> ...
> 

Because sample_interval will used by delayed_work, we must put setting 
sample_interval before enabling KFENCE.
So the order would be:

old_sample_interval = sample_interval;
sample_interval = num;
if (...) kfence_enable_late();

This may be bypassed after KFENCE_WARN_ON() happens, if we first write 
0, and then write 100 to it.

How about this one:

	if (ret < 0)
		return ret;

+	/* Cannot set sample_interval after KFENCE_WARN_ON(). */
+	if (unlikely(*((unsigned long *)kp->arg) && !READ_ONCE(kfence_enabled)))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
	if (!num) /* Using 0 to indicate KFENCE is disabled. */
		WRITE_ONCE(kfence_enabled, false);

> Thanks,
> -- Marco