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: <d509771b7e08fff0d18654b746e413e93ed62fe8.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Add kvfree_sensitive() for freeing sensitive data
 objects
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 06 Apr 2020 09:10:02 -0700
In-Reply-To: <319765.1586188840@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <a291cce3ff1ba978e7ad231a8e1b7d82f6164e86.camel@perches.com>
         <20200406023700.1367-1-longman@redhat.com>
         <319765.1586188840@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.1-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 17:00 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> 
> > > This patch introduces a new kvfree_sensitive() for freeing those
> > > sensitive data objects allocated by kvmalloc(). The relevnat places
> > > where kvfree_sensitive() can be used are modified to use it.
> > 
> > Why isn't this called kvzfree like the existing kzfree?
> 
> To quote Linus:
> 
> 	We have a function for clearing sensitive information: it's called
> 	"memclear_explicit()", and it's about forced (explicit) clearing even
> 	if the data might look dead afterwards.
> 
> 	The other problem with that function is the name: "__kvzfree()" is not
> 	a useful name for this function. We use the "__" format for internal
> 	low-level helpers, and it generally means that it does *less* than the
> 	full function. This does more, not less, and "__" is not following any
> 	sane naming model.
> 
> 	So the name should probably be something like "kvfree_sensitive()" or
> 	similar. Or maybe it could go even further, and talk about _why_ it's
> 	sensitive, and call it "kvfree_cleartext()" or something like that.
> 
> 	Because the clearing is really not what even matters. It might choose
> 	other patterns to overwrite things with, but it might do other things
> 	too, like putting special barriers for data leakage (or flags to tell
> 	return-to-user-mode to do so).
> 
> 	And yes, kzfree() isn't a good name either, and had that same
> 	memset(), but at least it doesn't do the dual-underscore mistake.
> 
> 	Including some kzfree()/crypto people explicitly - I hope we can get
> 	away from this incorrect and actively wrong pattern of thinking that
> 	"sensitive data should be memset(), and then we should add a random
> 	'z' in the name somewhere to 'document' that".

Thanks.

While I agree with Linus about the __ prefix,
the z is pretty common and symmetric to all
the <foo>zalloc uses.

And if _sensitive is actually used, it'd be
good to do a s/kzfree/kfree_sensitive/ one day
sooner than later.