linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/ksm: introduce ksm

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: <6285bc01.1c69fb81.c4048.6665@mx.google.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 03:39:43 +0000
From:   CGEL <cgel.zte@...il.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org,
        oleksandr@...alenko.name, willy@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        corbet@....net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        xu xin <xu.xin16@....com.cn>,
        Yang Yang <yang.yang29@....com.cn>,
        Ran Xiaokai <ran.xiaokai@....com.cn>,
        wangyong <wang.yong12@....com.cn>,
        Yunkai Zhang <zhang.yunkai@....com.cn>,
        Jiang Xuexin <jiang.xuexin@....com.cn>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/ksm: introduce ksm_enabled for each process

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 04:31:26PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:27 AM <cgel.zte@...il.com> wrote:
> > For now, if we want to use KSM to merge pages of some apps, we have to
> > explicitly call madvise() in application code, which means installed
> > apps on OS needs to be uninstall and source code needs to be modified.
> > It is very inconvenient because sometimes users or app developers are not
> > willing to modify their app source codes for any reasons.
> 
> As a sidenote: If you're going to enable KSM on your devices, I hope
> you're aware that KSM significantly reduces security -
> when cloud providers were using KSM, there were a bunch of papers that
> abused it for attacks. In particular, KSM inherently creates
> significant information leaks, because an attacker can determine
> whether a memory page with specific content exists in other apps
> through timing side channels. In the worst case, this could lead to an
> attacker being able to steal things like authentication tokens out of
> other apps.
> 
> If you see significant memory savings from enabling KSM, it might be a
> good idea to look into where exactly those savings are coming from,
> and look into whether there is a better way to reduce memory
> utilization that doesn't rely on comparing entire pages against each
> other.
> 
> See https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.08553.pdf for a recent research paper
> that shows that memory deduplication can even make it possible to
> remotely (!) leak memory contents out of a machine, over the internet.
> 
> (On top of that, KSM can also make it easier to pull off Rowhammer
> attacks in some contexts -
> see https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity16/sec16_paper_razavi.pdf
> .)

Thank you for your reply. The information you provided is very
meaningful. However, the administrator should have the right to decide
whether to use KSM. The kernel should provide a flexible mechanism to
use KSM. How to use KSM safely should be decided by the user's security
policy.