Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1561974995.18866.1.camel@mtksdccf07>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kasan: add memory corruption identification for
 software tag-based mode
From:   Walter Wu <walter-zh.wu@mediatek.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
CC:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        "Martin Schwidefsky" <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "Vasily Gorbik" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Miles Chen <miles.chen@mediatek.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
        wsd_upstream <wsd_upstream@mediatek.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:56:35 +0800
In-Reply-To: <1560774735.15814.54.camel@mtksdccf07>
References: <20190613081357.1360-1-walter-zh.wu@mediatek.com>
         <da7591c9-660d-d380-d59e-6d70b39eaa6b@virtuozzo.com>
         <1560447999.15814.15.camel@mtksdccf07>
         <1560479520.15814.34.camel@mtksdccf07>
         <1560744017.15814.49.camel@mtksdccf07>
         <CACT4Y+Y3uS59rXf92ByQuFK_G4v0H8NNnCY1tCbr4V+PaZF3ag@mail.gmail.com>
         <1560774735.15814.54.camel@mtksdccf07>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 20:32 +0800, Walter Wu wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 13:57 +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:00 AM Walter Wu <walter-zh.wu@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2019-06-14 at 10:32 +0800, Walter Wu wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2019-06-14 at 01:46 +0800, Walter Wu wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2019-06-13 at 15:27 +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 6/13/19 11:13 AM, Walter Wu wrote:
> > > > > > > This patch adds memory corruption identification at bug report for
> > > > > > > software tag-based mode, the report show whether it is "use-after-free"
> > > > > > > or "out-of-bound" error instead of "invalid-access" error.This will make
> > > > > > > it easier for programmers to see the memory corruption problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now we extend the quarantine to support both generic and tag-based kasan.
> > > > > > > For tag-based kasan, the quarantine stores only freed object information
> > > > > > > to check if an object is freed recently. When tag-based kasan reports an
> > > > > > > error, we can check if the tagged addr is in the quarantine and make a
> > > > > > > good guess if the object is more like "use-after-free" or "out-of-bound".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We already have all the information and don't need the quarantine to make such guess.
> > > > > > Basically if shadow of the first byte of object has the same tag as tag in pointer than it's out-of-bounds,
> > > > > > otherwise it's use-after-free.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In pseudo-code it's something like this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > u8 object_tag = *(u8 *)kasan_mem_to_shadow(nearest_object(cacche, page, access_addr));
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if (access_addr_tag == object_tag && object_tag != KASAN_TAG_INVALID)
> > > > > >   // out-of-bounds
> > > > > > else
> > > > > >   // use-after-free
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks your explanation.
> > > > > I see, we can use it to decide corruption type.
> > > > > But some use-after-free issues, it may not have accurate free-backtrace.
> > > > > Unfortunately in that situation, free-backtrace is the most important.
> > > > > please see below example
> > > > >
> > > > > In generic KASAN, it gets accurate free-backrace(ptr1).
> > > > > In tag-based KASAN, it gets wrong free-backtrace(ptr2). It will make
> > > > > programmer misjudge, so they may not believe tag-based KASAN.
> > > > > So We provide this patch, we hope tag-based KASAN bug report is the same
> > > > > accurate with generic KASAN.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >     ptr1 = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > >     ptr1_free(ptr1);
> > > > >
> > > > >     ptr2 = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > >     ptr2_free(ptr2);
> > > > >
> > > > >     ptr1[size] = 'x';  //corruption here
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > static noinline void ptr1_free(char* ptr)
> > > > > {
> > > > >     kfree(ptr);
> > > > > }
> > > > > static noinline void ptr2_free(char* ptr)
> > > > > {
> > > > >     kfree(ptr);
> > > > > }
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > We think of another question about deciding by that shadow of the first
> > > > byte.
> > > > In tag-based KASAN, it is immediately released after calling kfree(), so
> > > > the slub is easy to be used by another pointer, then it will change
> > > > shadow memory to the tag of new pointer, it will not be the
> > > > KASAN_TAG_INVALID, so there are many false negative cases, especially in
> > > > small size allocation.
> > > >
> > > > Our patch is to solve those problems. so please consider it, thanks.
> > > >
> > > Hi, Andrey and Dmitry,
> > >
> > > I am sorry to bother you.
> > > Would you tell me what you think about this patch?
> > > We want to use tag-based KASAN, so we hope its bug report is clear and
> > > correct as generic KASAN.
> > >
> > > Thanks your review.
> > > Walter
> > 
> > Hi Walter,
> > 
> > I will probably be busy till the next week. Sorry for delays.
> 
> It's ok. Thanks your kindly help.
> I hope I can contribute to tag-based KASAN. It is a very important tool
> for us.

Hi, Dmitry,

Would you have free time to discuss this patch together?
Thanks.

Walter