From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f71.google.com (mail-lf0-f71.google.com [209.85.215.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65496B0292 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f71.google.com with SMTP id h63so35595380lfg.4 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com (mail-lf0-f65.google.com. [209.85.215.65]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 26si7694783ljt.143.2017.07.17.12.01.26 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f65.google.com with SMTP id t72so13888380lff.0 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: alex.popov@linux.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/slub.c: add a naive detection of double free or corruption References: <1500309907-9357-1-git-send-email-alex.popov@linux.com> <20170717175459.GC14983@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Alexander Popov Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 22:01:15 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christopher Lameter , Matthew Wilcox Cc: Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, keescook@chromium.org 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? 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: email@kvack.org