netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree

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: <4babf834-c531-50ba-53f6-e88410b15ce3@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 02:32:03 -0600
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, linux-ppp@...r.kernel.org,
        wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        target-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, treewide: Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive()

On 4/13/20 3:15 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> As said by Linus:
> 
>    A symmetric naming is only helpful if it implies symmetries in use.
>    Otherwise it's actively misleading.
> 
>    In "kzalloc()", the z is meaningful and an important part of what the
>    caller wants.
> 
>    In "kzfree()", the z is actively detrimental, because maybe in the
>    future we really _might_ want to use that "memfill(0xdeadbeef)" or
>    something. The "zero" part of the interface isn't even _relevant_.
> 
> The main reason that kzfree() exists is to clear sensitive information
> that should not be leaked to other future users of the same memory
> objects.
> 
> Rename kzfree() to kfree_sensitive() to follow the example of the
> recently added kvfree_sensitive() and make the intention of the API
> more explicit. 

Seems reasonable to me. One bikeshed, that you can safely discard and 
ignore as a mere bikeshed: kfree_memzero or kfree_scrub or 
kfree_{someverb} seems like a better function name, as it describes what 
the function does, rather than "_sensitive" that suggests something 
about the data maybe but who knows what that entails. If you disagree, 
not a big deal either way.

 > In addition, memzero_explicit() is used to clear the
 > memory to make sure that it won't get optimized away by the compiler.

This had occurred to me momentarily a number of years ago, but I was 
under the impression that the kernel presumes extern function calls to 
always imply a compiler barrier, making it difficult for the compiler to 
reason about what happens in/after kfree, in order to be able to 
optimize out the preceding memset. With LTO, that rule obviously 
changes. I guess new code should be written with cross-object 
optimizations in mind now a days? [Meanwhile, it would be sort of 
interesting to teach gcc about kfree to enable additional scary 
optimizations...]