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=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 04F41C43613 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:09:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3E720679 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:09:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1561100950; bh=ZQHnOqGJR+8tkUqzjKqN9rQXn4LaKgwlfWTga19PRdI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=IBRxC8V+9K51+KUu/Gl53Ls01IVxNs9kAeeNz/Dkrsfb52PYFr8msOfL3ciAzX0NS 75yhnY0gb5f/asERNXKGc7fITBN3Rl9Nj/Q13ThyvPeoR2rxP4CTqnOUohCwWj0XHu QOCLhs+zUGQJw/5KejIcaPipsqHQQgXI/POTayfA= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726058AbfFUHJK (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2019 03:09:10 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37680 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726008AbfFUHJK (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2019 03:09:10 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6DB5ACC5; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:09:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:09:05 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Alexander Potapenko Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Kees Cook , Masahiro Yamada , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Nick Desaulniers , Kostya Serebryany , Dmitry Vyukov , Sandeep Patil , Laura Abbott , Randy Dunlap , Jann Horn , Mark Rutland , Marco Elver , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] mm: security: introduce init_on_alloc=1 and init_on_free=1 boot options Message-ID: <20190621070905.GA3429@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190617151050.92663-1-glider@google.com> <20190617151050.92663-2-glider@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190617151050.92663-2-glider@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mon 17-06-19 17:10:49, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > The new options are needed to prevent possible information leaks and > make control-flow bugs that depend on uninitialized values more > deterministic. > > init_on_alloc=1 makes the kernel initialize newly allocated pages and heap > objects with zeroes. Initialization is done at allocation time at the > places where checks for __GFP_ZERO are performed. > > init_on_free=1 makes the kernel initialize freed pages and heap objects > with zeroes upon their deletion. This helps to ensure sensitive data > doesn't leak via use-after-free accesses. > > Both init_on_alloc=1 and init_on_free=1 guarantee that the allocator > returns zeroed memory. The two exceptions are slab caches with > constructors and SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU flag. Those are never > zero-initialized to preserve their semantics. > > Both init_on_alloc and init_on_free default to zero, but those defaults > can be overridden with CONFIG_INIT_ON_ALLOC_DEFAULT_ON and > CONFIG_INIT_ON_FREE_DEFAULT_ON. > > 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%) > > 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%) > > The slowdown for init_on_free=0, init_on_alloc=0 compared to the > baseline is within the standard error. > > The new features are also going to pave the way for hardware memory > tagging (e.g. arm64's MTE), which will require both on_alloc and on_free > hooks to set the tags for heap objects. With MTE, tagging will have the > same cost as memory initialization. > > Although init_on_free is rather costly, there are paranoid use-cases where > in-memory data lifetime is desired to be minimized. There are various > arguments for/against the realism of the associated threat models, but > given that we'll need the infrastructre for MTE anyway, and there are > people who want wipe-on-free behavior no matter what the performance cost, > it seems reasonable to include it in this series. Thanks for reworking the original implemenation. This looks much better! > Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko > Acked-by: Kees Cook > To: Andrew Morton > To: Christoph Lameter > To: Kees Cook > Cc: Masahiro Yamada > Cc: Michal Hocko > Cc: James Morris > Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" > Cc: Nick Desaulniers > Cc: Kostya Serebryany > Cc: Dmitry Vyukov > Cc: Sandeep Patil > Cc: Laura Abbott > Cc: Randy Dunlap > Cc: Jann Horn > Cc: Mark Rutland > Cc: Marco Elver > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org > Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org > Cc: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Acked-by: Michal Hocko # page allocator parts. kmalloc based parts look good to me as well but I am not sure I fill qualified to give my ack there without much more digging and I do not have much time for that now. [...] > diff --git a/kernel/kexec_core.c b/kernel/kexec_core.c > index fd5c95ff9251..2f75dd0d0d81 100644 > --- a/kernel/kexec_core.c > +++ b/kernel/kexec_core.c > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static struct page *kimage_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order) > arch_kexec_post_alloc_pages(page_address(pages), count, > gfp_mask); > > - if (gfp_mask & __GFP_ZERO) > + if (want_init_on_alloc(gfp_mask)) > for (i = 0; i < count; i++) > clear_highpage(pages + i); > } I am not really sure I follow here. Why do we want to handle want_init_on_alloc here? The allocated memory comes from the page allocator and so it will get zeroed there. arch_kexec_post_alloc_pages might touch the content there but is there any actual risk of any kind of leak? > diff --git a/mm/dmapool.c b/mm/dmapool.c > index 8c94c89a6f7e..e164012d3491 100644 > --- a/mm/dmapool.c > +++ b/mm/dmapool.c > @@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ void *dma_pool_alloc(struct dma_pool *pool, gfp_t mem_flags, > #endif > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool->lock, flags); > > - if (mem_flags & __GFP_ZERO) > + if (want_init_on_alloc(mem_flags)) > memset(retval, 0, pool->size); > > return retval; Don't you miss dma_pool_free and want_init_on_free? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs