From: Kees Cook <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Alexander Popov <email@example.com>
Cc: Christopher Lameter <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com>,
Pekka Enberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
David Rientjes <email@example.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Andrew Morton <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/slub.c: add a naive detection of double free or corruption
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:04:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jL0bFpWqUm9d2X7zpTO_CwPp94ywcLYoFyNcLuiwX8qAQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Alexander Popov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 17.07.2017 22:11, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Alexander Popov <email@example.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:
> 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
I think there are two issues: first, this should likely be under
CONFIG_FREELIST_HARDENED since Christoph hasn't wanted to make these
changes enabled by default (if I'm understanding his earlier review
comments to me). The second issue is what to DO when a double-free is
discovered. Is there any way to make it safe/survivable? If not, I
think it should just be BUG_ON(). If it can be made safe, then likely
a WARN_ONCE and do whatever is needed to prevent the double-free.
> If you insist on putting this check under CONFIG_FREELIST_HARDENED, should I
> rebase onto your patch and send again?
That would be preferred for me -- I'd like to have both checks. :)
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to firstname.lastname@example.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"email@example.com"> firstname.lastname@example.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-18 20:04 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
2017-07-18 20:04 ` Kees Cook [this message]
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
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).