Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751879AbdGaUR1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:17:27 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f67.google.com ([209.85.215.67]:38273 "EHLO mail-lf0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751535AbdGaURX (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:17:23 -0400 Reply-To: alex.popov@linux.com Subject: Re: [v3] mm: Add SLUB free list pointer obfuscation To: Christopher Lameter , Kees Cook Cc: Andrew Morton , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , "Paul E. McKenney" , Ingo Molnar , Josh Triplett , Andy Lutomirski , Nicolas Pitre , Tejun Heo , Daniel Mack , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Sergey Senozhatsky , Helge Deller , Rik van Riel , Linux-MM , Tycho Andersen , LKML , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" References: <20170706002718.GA102852@beast> <515333f5-1815-8591-503e-c0cf6941670e@linux.com> From: Alexander Popov Message-ID: <4a6c0105-b084-aa87-6a2b-0650613df6ac@linux.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:17:19 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1196 Lines: 32 Hello Christopher and Kees, Excuse me for the delayed reply. On 28.07.2017 02:53, Christopher Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017, Alexander Popov wrote: > >> I don't really like ignoring double-free. I think, that: >> - it will hide dangerous bugs in the kernel, >> - it can make some kernel exploits more stable. >> I would rather add BUG_ON to set_freepointer() behind SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED. Is >> it fine? > > I think Kees already added some logging output. Hm, I don't see anything like that in v4 of "SLUB free list pointer obfuscation": https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9864165/ >> At the same time avoiding the consequences of some double-free errors is better >> than not doing that. It may be considered as kernel "self-healing", I don't >> know. I can prepare a second patch for do_slab_free(), as you described. Would >> you like it? > > The SLUB allocator is already self healing if you enable the option to do > so on bootup (covers more than just the double free case). What you > propose here is no different than that and just another way of having > similar functionality. In the best case it would work the same way. Ok, I see. Thanks. Best regards, Alexander