From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC97C04AAF for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 17:03:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D41E20815 for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 17:03:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="Ros4p2hk" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727218AbfEPRDP (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 May 2019 13:03:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com ([209.85.215.194]:45064 "EHLO mail-pg1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727210AbfEPRDO (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 May 2019 13:03:14 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id i21so1844534pgi.12 for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 10:03:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=2OkSls3BBuVCd2Q9OzzUfEJIECS5yJPO8xcocfnTaN4=; b=Ros4p2hkOqmoHbdixDDcfrW1H7jyK9zIQYjqlUFzXr5CiZP+1t7cTKrai4i8J8Q1Jc TzF8dMleKNk7RbmmoaakWyHRVMp2G/Ig5tkzDXUlXt800e0jwOfhD+WEBmHapdlbmP4M EBbEoq8OjOlQ/XJdZ16uZvhYu/dMHPBTDkc+c= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=2OkSls3BBuVCd2Q9OzzUfEJIECS5yJPO8xcocfnTaN4=; b=Ug/5y+BmesAuqczQ/CDLrpReCSBmDlFvkKxlNM7PqDMmFG3LOxliNBstN8HP1007vF 5r6BZU1QOvfih0/JehmEwj/A3MMt0yzhHwyaBwdtGTKou/9TUDPeLTMVvspGErYKbvE6 PWdwFmYdOH/RQ94n61bW43/R1DJhNJdCc+1V+ACsSHV3026EwpVUGXwFz2MgzV8cY8qL VhKTHz3srTTuXqL4/yGSJsW+aHeRQbjtSqHnxY08mquuAma4JzQ72tIHlPSBD+tWPsnW 9ZhHyd/aJxt1KfiUMNk4y8C9V574MepmRpWQuyCXwHdgmMWnpF56tzChsBJyDqzzdaqf hbsg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWRMxCM3FNi5H1V3eSseHPukpGSTc6D3LJ0WTVmy/hpikzdgt0p VRSUJwSkWkrqArYqH+YOXNGDQw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxf86X0I5LWFcSKWu+jd0qD6qpD2y7bXzGg9HBoYqsOh3qhcsFm36RFG3tU2Ws97h56kHXWnw== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9a8c:: with SMTP id w12mr54743779pfi.187.1558026193892; Thu, 16 May 2019 10:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b3sm10386588pfr.146.2019.05.16.10.03.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 16 May 2019 10:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 10:03:11 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Alexander Potapenko Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Kernel Hardening , Masahiro Yamada , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Nick Desaulniers , Kostya Serebryany , Dmitry Vyukov , Sandeep Patil , Laura Abbott , Randy Dunlap , Jann Horn , Mark Rutland , Linux Memory Management List , linux-security-module Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: security: introduce init_on_alloc=1 and init_on_free=1 boot options Message-ID: <201905160953.903FD364BC@keescook> References: <20190514143537.10435-1-glider@google.com> <20190514143537.10435-2-glider@google.com> <201905160907.92FAC880@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 06:42:37PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > I suspect the slowdown of init_on_free is bigger than that of > PAX_SANITIZE_MEMORY, as we've set the goal to have fully zeroed memory > at alloc time. > If we want a mode that only wipes the user data upon free() but > doesn't eliminate all uninit memory, then we can make it faster. Yeah, I sent a separate email that discusses this a bit more. I think the goals of init_on_alloc and init_on_free are likely a bit different. Given init_on_alloc's much more cache-friendly performance, I think that it's likely the right way forward for getting to fully zeroed memory at alloc time. (Though I note that it already includes exclusions: such tradeoffs won't be unique to init_on_free.) init_on_free appears to give us similar coverage (but also reduces the lifetime of unused data), but isn't cache-friendly so it looks to need a lot more tuning/trade-offs. (Not that we shouldn't include it! It'll just need a bit more care to be reasonable.) > > +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 > For stack there's no binary on/off, as you can potentially build half > of the kernel with stack instrumentation and another half without it. > We could make the instrumentation insert a static global flag into > each translation unit, but this won't give us any interesting info. Well, yes, that's technically true, but I think reporting the kernel config here would make sense. If someone intentionally bypasses the stack auto-init for portions of the kernel, we can't meaningfully report it here. There will be exceptions for stack auto-init and heap auto-init. -- Kees Cook