[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 09:19:56 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux.com,
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>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: security: introduce init_on_alloc=1 and
init_on_free=1 boot options
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 04:35:34PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> Slowdown for the new features compared to init_on_free=0,
> init_on_alloc=0:
>
> hackbench, init_on_free=1: +7.62% sys time (st.err 0.74%)
> hackbench, init_on_alloc=1: +7.75% sys time (st.err 2.14%)
I wonder if the patch series should be reorganized to introduce
__GFP_NO_AUTOINIT first, so that when the commit with benchmarks appears,
we get the "final" numbers...
> Linux build with -j12, init_on_free=1: +8.38% wall time (st.err 0.39%)
> Linux build with -j12, init_on_free=1: +24.42% sys time (st.err 0.52%)
> Linux build with -j12, init_on_alloc=1: -0.13% wall time (st.err 0.42%)
> Linux build with -j12, init_on_alloc=1: +0.57% sys time (st.err 0.40%)
I'm working on reproducing these benchmarks. I'd really like to narrow
down the +24% number here. But it does
> The slowdown for init_on_free=0, init_on_alloc=0 compared to the
> baseline is within the standard error.
I think the use of static keys here is really great: this is available
by default for anyone that wants to turn it on.
I'm thinking, given the configuable nature of this, it'd be worth adding
a little more detail at boot time. I think maybe a separate patch could
be added to describe the kernel's memory auto-initialization features,
and add something like this to mm_init():
+void __init report_meminit(void)
+{
+ const char *stack;
+
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INIT_STACK_ALL))
+ stack = "all";
+ else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL))
+ stack = "byref_all";
+ else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF))
+ stack = "byref";
+ else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_USER))
+ stack = "__user";
+ else
+ stack = "off";
+
+ /* Report memory auto-initialization states for this boot. */
+ pr_info("mem auto-init: stack:%s, heap alloc:%s, heap free:%s\n",
+ stack, want_init_on_alloc(GFP_KERNEL) ? "on" : "off",
+ want_init_on_free() ? "on" : "off");
+}
To get a boot line like:
mem auto-init: stack:off, heap alloc:off, heap free:on
And one other thought I had was that in the init_on_free=1 case, there is
a large pause at boot while memory is being cleared. I think it'd be handy
to include a comment about that, just to keep people from being surprised:
diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
index cf0c3948ce0e..aea278392338 100644
--- a/init/main.c
+++ b/init/main.c
@@ -529,6 +529,8 @@ static void __init mm_init(void)
* bigger than MAX_ORDER unless SPARSEMEM.
*/
page_ext_init_flatmem();
+ if (want_init_on_free())
+ pr_info("Clearing system memory ...\n");
mem_init();
kmem_cache_init();
pgtable_init();
Beyond these thoughts, I think this series is in good shape.
Andrew (or anyone else) do you have any concerns about this?
--
Kees Cook
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.
