linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
	<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/slub.c: add a naive detection of double free or corruption
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:56:23 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1edb137c-356f-81d6-4592-f5dfc68e8ea9@linux.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jK5j2pSVca9XGJhJ6pnF04p7S=K1Z432nzG2y4LfKhYjg@mail.gmail.com>

On 17.07.2017 22:11, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com> wrote:
>> Hello Christopher,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> On 17.07.2017 21:04, Christopher Lameter wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 07:45:07PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>>>>> Add an assertion similar to "fasttop" check in GNU C Library allocator:
>>>>> an object added to a singly linked freelist should not point to itself.
>>>>> That helps to detect some double free errors (e.g. CVE-2017-2636) without
>>>>> slub_debug and KASAN. Testing with hackbench doesn't show any noticeable
>>>>> performance penalty.
>>>>
>>>>>  {
>>>>> +   BUG_ON(object == fp); /* naive detection of double free or corruption */
>>>>>     *(void **)(object + s->offset) = fp;
>>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> Is BUG() the best response to this situation?  If it's a corruption, then
>>>> yes, but if we spot a double-free, then surely we should WARN() and return
>>>> without doing anything?
>>>
>>> The double free debug checking already does the same thing in a more
>>> thourough way (this one only checks if the last free was the same
>>> address). So its duplicating a check that already exists.
>>
>> Yes, absolutely. Enabled slub_debug (or KASAN with its quarantine) can detect
>> more double-free errors. But it introduces much bigger performance penalty and
>> it's disabled by default.
>>
>>> However, this one is always on.
>>
>> Yes, I would propose to have this relatively cheap check enabled by default. I
>> think it will block a good share of double-free errors. Currently it's really
>> easy to turn such a double-free into use-after-free and exploit it, since, as I
>> wrote, next two kmalloc() calls return the same address. So we could make
>> exploiting harder for a relatively low price.
>>
>> Christopher, if I change BUG_ON() to VM_BUG_ON(), it will be disabled by default
>> again, right?
> 
> Let's merge this with the proposed CONFIG_FREELIST_HARDENED, then the
> performance change is behind a config, and we gain the rest of the
> freelist protections at the same time:
> 
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/07/06/1

Hello Kees,

If I change BUG_ON() to VM_BUG_ON(), this check will work at least on Fedora
since it has CONFIG_DEBUG_VM enabled. Debian based distros have this option
disabled. Do you like that more than having this check under
CONFIG_FREELIST_HARDENED?

If you insist on putting this check under CONFIG_FREELIST_HARDENED, should I
rebase onto your patch and send again?

Best regards,
Alexander

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-07-18 19:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-07-17 16:45 [PATCH 1/1] mm/slub.c: add a naive detection of double free or corruption Alexander Popov
2017-07-17 16:57 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-07-17 17:54 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-07-17 18:04   ` Christopher Lameter
2017-07-17 19:01     ` Alexander Popov
2017-07-17 19:11       ` Kees Cook
2017-07-18 19:56         ` Alexander Popov [this message]
2017-07-18 20:04           ` Kees Cook
2017-07-19  8:38             ` Alexander Popov
2017-07-19 14:02             ` Christopher Lameter
2017-07-18 14:57       ` Christopher Lameter
2017-07-17 18:23   ` Alexander Popov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1edb137c-356f-81d6-4592-f5dfc68e8ea9@linux.com \
    --to=alex.popov@linux.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).