linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Make failslab writable again

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: <6f5a8f71-3d82-97bf-90e1-0f33546bb59b@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:17:23 +0300
From:   Alexander Atanasov <alexander.atanasov@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
Cc:     kernel@...nvz.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Make failslab writable again

Hello,

On 20.09.22 11:42, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/20/22 10:20, Alexander Atanasov wrote:
>> In (060807f841ac mm, slub: make remaining slub_debug related attributes
>> read-only failslab) it was made RO.
> 
> "read-only) failslab was made RO" ?

Yep.

>> I think it became a collateral victim to the other two options
>> (sanity_checks and trace) for which the reasons are perfectly valid.
> 
> The commit also mentioned that modifying the flags is not protected in any
> way, see below.

Yes, indeed.

>> +static ssize_t failslab_store(struct kmem_cache *s, const char *buf,
>> +				size_t length)
>> +{
>> +	if (s->refcount > 1)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	s->flags &= ~SLAB_FAILSLAB;
>> +	if (buf[0] == '1')
>> +		s->flags |= SLAB_FAILSLAB;
> 
> Could we at least use a temporary variable to set up the final value and
> then do a WRITE_ONCE() to s->flags, so the compiler is not allowed to do
> some funky stuff? Assuming this is really the only place where we modify
> s->flags during runtime, so we can't miss other updates due to RMW.

Since it is set or clear - instead of temporary variable and potentially 
two writes and RMW issues i would suggest this:
+	if (buf[0] == '1')
+		s->flags |= SLAB_FAILSLAB;
+       else
+		s->flags &= ~SLAB_FAILSLAB;

If at some point more places need to modify the flags at runtime they 
can switch to atomic bit ops.

-- 
Regards,
Alexander Atanasov