Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Message-ID: <fec2561d-42fb-dd47-6e8f-3b55aaf39d85@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 12 Dec 2023 12:42:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm/slub: free KFENCE objects in slab_free_hook()
To:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com
References: <20231204-slub-cleanup-hooks-v1-0-88b65f7cd9d5@suse.cz>
 <20231204-slub-cleanup-hooks-v1-4-88b65f7cd9d5@suse.cz>
 <44421a37-4343-46d0-9e5c-17c2cd038cf2@linux.dev>
 <79e29576-12a2-a423-92f3-d8a7bcd2f0ce@suse.cz>
 <fdd11528-b0f8-48af-8141-15c4b1b01c65@linux.dev>
 <CANpmjNO1_LxE9w4m_Wa5xxc1R87LhnJSZ3DV59ia3-SdQUmtpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+fCnZfhqQ+n0SsZU0RKEov3CkwTNJXM7JTMxtkrODmbJPskDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <CA+fCnZfhqQ+n0SsZU0RKEov3CkwTNJXM7JTMxtkrODmbJPskDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/11/23 23:11, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 3:45 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> The is_kfence_address() implementation tolerates tagged addresses,
>> i.e. if it receives a tagged non-kfence address, it will never return
>> true.

So just to be sure, it can't happen that a genuine kfence address would then
become KASAN tagged and handed out, and thus when tested by
is_kfence_address() it would be a false negative?

>> The KASAN_HW_TAGS patches and KFENCE patches were in development
>> concurrently, and at the time there was some conflict resolution that
>> happened when both were merged. The
>> is_kfence_address(kasan_reset_tag(..)) initially came from [1] but was
>> squashed into 2b8305260fb.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/9dc196006921b191d25d10f6e611316db7da2efc.1611946152.git.andreyknvl@google.com/
>>
>> Andrey, do you recall what issue you encountered that needed kasan_reset_tag()?
> 
> I don't remember at this point, but this could have been just a safety measure.
> 
> If is_kfence_address tolerates tagged addresses, we should be able to
> drop these kasan_reset_tag calls.

Will drop it once the above is confirmed. Thanks!