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;
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 18:47:42 +0100
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@gmail.com>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/vmalloc: randomize vmalloc() allocations
Message-ID: <20210315174742.GA2038@pc638.lan>
References: <20210309135757.5406-1-toiwoton@gmail.com>
 <20210314172312.GA2085@pc638.lan>
 <f2d6965b-1801-ce91-0c7c-2cdc92493393@gmail.com>
 <20210315122410.GA26784@pc636>
 <202103150914.4172D96@keescook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202103150914.4172D96@keescook>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:16:26AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 01:24:10PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:04:42AM +0200, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> > > What's the problem with that? It seems to me that nothing relies on specific
> > > addresses of the chunks, so it should be possible to randomize these too.
> > > Also the alignment is honored.
> > > 
> > My concern are:
> > 
> > - it is not a vmalloc allocator;
> > - per-cpu allocator allocates chunks, thus it might be it happens only once. It does not allocate it often;
> 
> That's actually the reason to randomize it: if it always ends up in the
> same place at every boot, it becomes a stable target for attackers.
> 
Probably we can randomize a base address only once when pcpu-allocator
allocates a fist chunk during the boot.

> > - changing it will likely introduce issues you are not aware of;
> > - it is not supposed to be interacting with vmalloc allocator. Read the
> >   comment under pcpu_get_vm_areas();
> > 
> > Therefore i propose just not touch it.
> 
> How about splitting it from this patch instead? Then it can get separate
> testing, etc.
> 
It should be split as well as tested.

--
Vlad Rezki