Re: [PATCHv2] lkdtm: Add READ_AFTER_FREE test

[Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>]

On 02/22/2016 11:27 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 02/19/2016 02:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 02/19/2016 11:12 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Laura Abbott
>>>>> <labbott@fedoraproject.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a similar manner to WRITE_AFTER_FREE, add a READ_AFTER_FREE
>>>>>> test to test free poisoning features. Sample output when
>>>>>> no sanitization is present:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [   22.414170] lkdtm: Performing direct entry READ_AFTER_FREE
>>>>>> [   22.415124] lkdtm: Value in memory before free: 12345678
>>>>>> [   22.415900] lkdtm: Attempting to read from freed memory
>>>>>> [   22.416394] lkdtm: Successfully read value: 12345678
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with sanitization:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [   25.874585] lkdtm: Performing direct entry READ_AFTER_FREE
>>>>>> [   25.875527] lkdtm: Value in memory before free: 12345678
>>>>>> [   25.876382] lkdtm: Attempting to read from freed memory
>>>>>> [   25.876900] general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@fedoraproject.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent! Could you mention in the changelog which CONFIG (or runtime
>>>>> values) will change the lkdtm test? (I thought there was a poisoning
>>>>> style that would result in a zero-read instead of a GP?)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was a zeroing patch in the first draft but given the direction
>>>> things are going, I don't see it going in. I'll mention the debug
>>>> options which will show this though.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah! Okay, I was having trouble following what was happening. What's
>>> the current state of the use-after-free protections you've been
>>> working on?
>>
>>
>> Based on discussion, the SL*B maintainers want to use the existing
>> slab poisoning features instead adding in new hooks. They also don't
>> want the fast path to be affected at all. This means most of the
>> actual work there is improving the performance of slub_debug=P. I
>> sent out patches for some low hanging fruit in SLUB which improved
>> the performance by a good bit. Those have been Acked and are sitting
>> in Andrew's tree. The next performance work involves more in depth
>> tinkering with the SLUB allocator. Apart from just performance, the
>> other work would be poisoning for caches with ctors in SLUB and
>> poisoning in SLOB. I could use some help with benchmarking some
>> actual use cases to see how usable slub_debug=P would be on some
>> use cases.
>>
>> I did sent out patches for the buddy allocator as well. The last
>
> This must be where my confusion stems. :) IIUC, the buddy allocator is
> used within the SL*B logic when splitting/joining regions? Can we add
> an lkdtm test for this too?
>

The buddy allocator backs the underlying SL*B logic. Each SL*B allocation
is typically less than a page so those allocators manage the smaller
allocations. I was thinking about an LKDTM test for the buddy allocator
as well. I'll see about adding one. This would be useful for testing
debug_pagealloc as well.

  
>> version I sent out didn't get much in the way of feedback except
>> for some requests for benchmarks on the zeroing. I was planning
>> on following up on that next week to see if there was any more feedback
>> and beg for Acks.
>
> If you can point me at the current tree, I'd be happy to run some benchmarks.
>

mmotm should have the patches http://git.cmpxchg.org/cgit.cgi/linux-mmotm.git/
Turn on CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING and set page_poison=on on the command line.

> -Kees
>

Thanks,
Laura