[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 15:23:26 +0200
From: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...roid.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] gfp: mm: introduce __GFP_NOINIT
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Date: Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:16 PM
To: Alexander Potapenko
Cc: Andrew Morton, Christoph Lameter, Kees Cook, Laura Abbott,
Linux-MM, linux-security-module, Kernel Hardening, Masahiro Yamada,
James Morris, Serge E. Hallyn, Nick Desaulniers, Kostya Serebryany,
Dmitry Vyukov, Sandeep Patil, Randy Dunlap, Jann Horn, Mark Rutland
> On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 8:38 AM Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com> wrote:
> > When passed to an allocator (either pagealloc or SL[AOU]B), __GFP_NOINIT
> > tells it to not initialize the requested memory if the init_on_alloc
> > boot option is enabled. This can be useful in the cases newly allocated
> > memory is going to be initialized by the caller right away.
> >
> > __GFP_NOINIT doesn't affect init_on_free behavior, except for SLOB,
> > where init_on_free implies init_on_alloc.
> >
> > __GFP_NOINIT basically defeats the hardening against information leaks
> > provided by init_on_alloc, so one should use it with caution.
> >
> > This patch also adds __GFP_NOINIT to alloc_pages() calls in SL[AOU]B.
> > Doing so is safe, because the heap allocators initialize the pages they
> > receive before passing memory to the callers.
> >
> > Slowdown for the initialization features compared to init_on_free=0,
> > init_on_alloc=0:
> >
> > hackbench, init_on_free=1: +6.84% sys time (st.err 0.74%)
> > hackbench, init_on_alloc=1: +7.25% sys time (st.err 0.72%)
> >
> > Linux build with -j12, init_on_free=1: +8.52% wall time (st.err 0.42%)
> > Linux build with -j12, init_on_free=1: +24.31% sys time (st.err 0.47%)
> > Linux build with -j12, init_on_alloc=1: -0.16% wall time (st.err 0.40%)
> > Linux build with -j12, init_on_alloc=1: +1.24% sys time (st.err 0.39%)
> >
> > The slowdown for init_on_free=0, init_on_alloc=0 compared to the
> > baseline is within the standard error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
> > Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
> > Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
> > Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > Cc: Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...roid.com>
> > Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> > Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
> > Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
> > Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
> > ---
> > include/linux/gfp.h | 6 +++++-
> > include/linux/mm.h | 2 +-
> > kernel/kexec_core.c | 2 +-
> > mm/slab.c | 2 +-
> > mm/slob.c | 3 ++-
> > mm/slub.c | 1 +
> > 6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > index fdab7de7490d..66d7f5604fe2 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> > #else
> > #define ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP 0
> > #endif
> > +#define ___GFP_NOINIT 0x1000000u
>
> I mentioned this in the other patch, but I think this needs to be
> moved ahead of GFP_NOLOCKDEP and adjust the values for GFP_NOLOCKDEP
> and to leave the IS_ENABLED() test in __GFP_BITS_SHIFT alone.
Do we really need this blinking GFP_NOLOCKDEP bit at all?
This approach doesn't scale, we can't even have a second feature that
has a bit depending on the config settings.
Cannot we just fix the number of bits instead?
> > /* If the above are modified, __GFP_BITS_SHIFT may need updating */
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -208,16 +209,19 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> > * %__GFP_COMP address compound page metadata.
> > *
> > * %__GFP_ZERO returns a zeroed page on success.
> > + *
> > + * %__GFP_NOINIT requests non-initialized memory from the underlying allocator.
> > */
> > #define __GFP_NOWARN ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_NOWARN)
> > #define __GFP_COMP ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_COMP)
> > #define __GFP_ZERO ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_ZERO)
> > +#define __GFP_NOINIT ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_NOINIT)
> >
> > /* Disable lockdep for GFP context tracking */
> > #define __GFP_NOLOCKDEP ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
> >
> > /* Room for N __GFP_FOO bits */
> > -#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT (23 + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP))
> > +#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT (25)
>
> AIUI, this will break non-CONFIG_LOCKDEP kernels: it should just be:
>
> -#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT (23 + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP))
> +#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT (24 + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP))
>
> > #define __GFP_BITS_MASK ((__force gfp_t)((1 << __GFP_BITS_SHIFT) - 1))
> >
> > /**
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > index ee1a1092679c..8ab152750eb4 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -2618,7 +2618,7 @@ DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(init_on_alloc);
> > static inline bool want_init_on_alloc(gfp_t flags)
> > {
> > if (static_branch_unlikely(&init_on_alloc))
> > - return true;
> > + return !(flags & __GFP_NOINIT);
> > return flags & __GFP_ZERO;
>
> What do you think about renaming __GFP_NOINIT to __GFP_NO_AUTOINIT or something?
>
> Regardless, yes, this is nice.
>
> --
> Kees Cook
--
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer
Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-Straße, 33
80636 München
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
