All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux.com,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Sandeep Patil <sspatil@android.com>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: security: introduce init_on_alloc=1 and init_on_free=1 boot options
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 09:19:56 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201905160907.92FAC880@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190514143537.10435-2-glider@google.com>

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

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-16 16:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-14 14:35 [PATCH v2 0/4] RFC: add init_on_alloc/init_on_free boot options Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-14 14:35 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: security: introduce init_on_alloc=1 and init_on_free=1 " Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-16 16:19   ` Kees Cook [this message]
2019-05-16 16:42     ` Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-16 17:03       ` Kees Cook
2019-05-17  1:26   ` Kees Cook
2019-05-17 14:38     ` Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-17 14:04   ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-17 14:11     ` Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-17 14:20       ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-17 16:36         ` Kees Cook
2019-05-17 17:11           ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-14 14:35 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] lib: introduce test_meminit module Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-16  1:02   ` Kees Cook
2019-05-17 15:51     ` Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-17 16:37       ` Kees Cook
2019-05-14 14:35 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] gfp: mm: introduce __GFP_NO_AUTOINIT Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-17 12:59   ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-17 13:18     ` Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-17 13:25       ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-17 13:37         ` Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-17 14:01           ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-17 16:27             ` Kees Cook
2019-05-17 17:11               ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-21 14:18                 ` Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-21 14:25                   ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-14 14:35 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] net: apply __GFP_NO_AUTOINIT to AF_UNIX sk_buff allocations Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-16 16:53   ` Kees Cook
2019-05-17  0:26     ` Kees Cook
2019-05-17  8:49       ` Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-17 13:50         ` Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-17 16:13         ` Kees Cook
2019-05-17  0:50   ` [PATCH 5/4] mm: Introduce SLAB_NO_FREE_INIT and mark excluded caches Kees Cook
2019-05-17  8:34     ` Alexander Potapenko
2019-05-17 15:59       ` Kees Cook
2019-05-20  6:10     ` Mathias Krause
2019-05-20 16:12       ` Kees Cook

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201905160907.92FAC880@keescook \
    --to=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=glider@google.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=kcc@google.com \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=labbott@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=sspatil@android.com \
    --cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.