Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-75654-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:29:17 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 
	mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, 
	mgorman@suse.de, dave@stgolabs.net, willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, 
	penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, corbet@lwn.net, void@manifault.com, peterz@infradead.org, 
	juri.lelli@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, 
	tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, 
	peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, mcgrof@kernel.org, 
	masahiroy@kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org, dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, 
	muchun.song@linux.dev, rppt@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, 
	yosryahmed@google.com, yuzhao@google.com, dhowells@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, 
	andreyknvl@gmail.com, ndesaulniers@google.com, vvvvvv@google.com, 
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, ebiggers@google.com, ytcoode@gmail.com, 
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, 
	bsegall@google.com, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, 
	penberg@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, glider@google.com, 
	elver@google.com, dvyukov@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, 
	songmuchun@bytedance.com, jbaron@akamai.com, rientjes@google.com, minchan@google.com, 
	kaleshsingh@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, 
	kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/36] lib: add allocation tagging support for memory
 allocation profiling
Message-ID: <4vwiwgsemga7vmahgwsikbsawjq5xfskdsssmjsfe5hn7k2alk@b6ig5v2pxe5i>
References: <20240221194052.927623-1-surenb@google.com>
 <20240221194052.927623-15-surenb@google.com>
 <202402211449.401382D2AF@keescook>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202402211449.401382D2AF@keescook>

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:05:32PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:40:27AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > [...]
> > +struct alloc_tag {
> > +	struct codetag			ct;
> > +	struct alloc_tag_counters __percpu	*counters;
> > +} __aligned(8);
> > [...]
> > +#define DEFINE_ALLOC_TAG(_alloc_tag)						\
> > +	static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct alloc_tag_counters, _alloc_tag_cntr);	\
> > +	static struct alloc_tag _alloc_tag __used __aligned(8)			\
> > +	__section("alloc_tags") = {						\
> > +		.ct = CODE_TAG_INIT,						\
> > +		.counters = &_alloc_tag_cntr };
> > [...]
> > +static inline struct alloc_tag *alloc_tag_save(struct alloc_tag *tag)
> > +{
> > +	swap(current->alloc_tag, tag);
> > +	return tag;
> > +}
> 
> Future security hardening improvement idea based on this infrastructure:
> it should be possible to implement per-allocation-site kmem caches. For
> example, we could create:
> 
> struct alloc_details {
> 	u32 flags;
> 	union {
> 		u32 size; /* not valid after __init completes */
> 		struct kmem_cache *cache;
> 	};
> };
> 
> - add struct alloc_details to struct alloc_tag
> - move the tags section into .ro_after_init
> - extend alloc_hooks() to populate flags and size:
> 	.flags = __builtin_constant_p(size) ? KMALLOC_ALLOCATE_FIXED
> 					    : KMALLOC_ALLOCATE_BUCKETS;
> 	.size = __builtin_constant_p(size) ? size : SIZE_MAX;
> - during kernel start or module init, walk the alloc_tag list
>   and create either a fixed-size kmem_cache or to allocate a
>   full set of kmalloc-buckets, and update the "cache" member.
> - adjust kmalloc core routines to use current->alloc_tag->cache instead
>   of using the global buckets.
> 
> This would get us fully separated allocations, producing better than
> type-based levels of granularity, exceeding what we have currently with
> CONFIG_RANDOM_KMALLOC_CACHES.
> 
> Does this look possible, or am I misunderstanding something in the
> infrastructure being created here?

Definitely possible, but... would we want this? That would produce a
_lot_ of kmem caches, and don't we already try to collapse those where
possible to reduce internal fragmentation?