Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200907134055.2878499-1-elver@google.com> <20200907134055.2878499-2-elver@google.com>
 <CACT4Y+aBpeQYOWGrCoaJ=HAa0BsSekyL88kcLBTGwc--C+Ch0w@mail.gmail.com> <CANpmjNN7qAtnUmibwGJEnxd+UcjBM1WeocoLeW0SO24NW3SkVA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNN7qAtnUmibwGJEnxd+UcjBM1WeocoLeW0SO24NW3SkVA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Sep 2020 17:48:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+Z2Nay4mDjnHjooRa7u3ZXf72AFkF=EfkrZjCg9YEduMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/10] mm: add Kernel Electric-Fence infrastructure
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 5:06 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 3:41 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> > > +config KFENCE_NUM_OBJECTS
> > > +       int "Number of guarded objects available"
> > > +       default 255
> > > +       range 1 65535
> > > +       help
> > > +         The number of guarded objects available. For each KFENCE object, 2
> > > +         pages are required; with one containing the object and two adjacent
> > > +         ones used as guard pages.
> >
> > Hi Marco,
> >
> > Wonder if you tested build/boot with KFENCE_NUM_OBJECTS=65535? Can a
> > compiler create such a large object?
>
> Indeed, I get a "ld: kernel image bigger than KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE".
> Let's lower it to something more reasonable.
>
> The main reason to have the limit is to constrain random configs and
> avoid the inevitable error reports.
>
> > > +config KFENCE_FAULT_INJECTION
> > > +       int "Fault injection for stress testing"
> > > +       default 0
> > > +       depends on EXPERT
> > > +       help
> > > +         The inverse probability with which to randomly protect KFENCE object
> > > +         pages, resulting in spurious use-after-frees. The main purpose of
> > > +         this option is to stress-test KFENCE with concurrent error reports
> > > +         and allocations/frees. A value of 0 disables fault injection.
> >
> > I would name this differently. "FAULT_INJECTION" is already taken for
> > a different thing, so it's a bit confusing.
> > KFENCE_DEBUG_SOMETHING may be a better name.
> > It would also be good to make it very clear in the short description
> > that this is for testing of KFENCE itself. When I configure syzbot I
> > routinely can't figure out if various DEBUG configs detect user
> > errors, or enable additional unit tests, or something else.
>
> Makes sense, we'll change the name.
>
> > Maybe it should depend on DEBUG_KERNEL as well?
>
> EXPERT selects DEBUG_KERNEL, so depending on DEBUG_KERNEL doesn't make sense.
>
> > > +/*
> > > + * Get the canary byte pattern for @addr. Use a pattern that varies based on the
> > > + * lower 3 bits of the address, to detect memory corruptions with higher
> > > + * probability, where similar constants are used.
> > > + */
> > > +#define KFENCE_CANARY_PATTERN(addr) ((u8)0xaa ^ (u8)((unsigned long)addr & 0x7))
> >
> > (addr) in macro body
>
> Done for v2.
>
> > > +       seq_con_printf(seq,
> > > +                      "kfence-#%zd [0x" PTR_FMT "-0x" PTR_FMT
> >
> > PTR_FMT is only used in this file, should it be declared in report.c?
>
> It's also used by the test.
>
> > Please post example reports somewhere. It's hard to figure out all
> > details of the reporting/formatting.
>
> They can be seen in Documentation added later in the series (also
> viewable here: https://github.com/google/kasan/blob/kfence/Documentation/dev-tools/kfence.rst)


Looking at the first report. I got impression we are trying to skip
__kfence frames, but this includes it:

kfence-#17 [0xffffffffb672f000-0xffffffffb672f01f, size=32,
cache=kmalloc-32] allocated in:
   __kfence_alloc+0x42d/0x4c0
   __kmalloc+0x133/0x200

Is it working as intended?