From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11CF0C10F0B for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 20:36:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30A92075E for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 20:36:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=c-s.fr header.i=@c-s.fr header.b="XwSO9UiH" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726477AbfDBUgr (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2019 16:36:47 -0400 Received: from pegase1.c-s.fr ([93.17.236.30]:36462 "EHLO pegase1.c-s.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725812AbfDBUgq (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2019 16:36:46 -0400 Received: from localhost (mailhub1-int [192.168.12.234]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44Ygwr5PLKz9v0Vr; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 22:36:44 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: localhost; dkim=pass reason="1024-bit key; insecure key" header.d=c-s.fr header.i=@c-s.fr header.b=XwSO9UiH; dkim-adsp=pass; dkim-atps=neutral X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c-s.fr Received: from pegase1.c-s.fr ([192.168.12.234]) by localhost (pegase1.c-s.fr [192.168.12.234]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yyUnmaIc8DNn; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 22:36:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [192.168.25.192]) by pegase1.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44Ygwr3nJYz9v0Vq; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 22:36:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=c-s.fr; s=mail; t=1554237404; bh=BwooMA22qN5MVKhV+b35SP+1LDZWopZGd8mOz82SGGY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XwSO9UiHs7eDKhbgCafzeJv3wWzgWvMT2DlYlpZEUflcR82p5RjBXhqv1B+ZBZ/qz PoHCRyburOnl9/TcAZbdfUDX10m3l+OZInCgSAJ3kqvNEXuvVWndlKUIWdEw59AzAH 3Tipq4va5XI4jqdbpACigBrudGGvi4yNapNBGy+4= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB2C8B8D2; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 22:36:44 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at c-s.fr Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id x1CuPvs9w0Vs; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 22:36:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PO15451 (unknown [192.168.4.90]) by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8D38B8CD; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 22:36:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] kasan: add interceptors for all string functions To: Andrey Ryabinin , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Nicholas Piggin , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Alexander Potapenko , Dmitry Vyukov , Daniel Axtens Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com References: <51a6d9d7185de310f37ccbd7e4ebfdd6c7e9791f.1553785020.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> <3211b0f8-7b52-01b7-8208-65d746969248@c-s.fr> From: Christophe Leroy Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 22:36:43 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le 02/04/2019 à 18:14, Andrey Ryabinin a écrit : > > > On 4/2/19 12:43 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote: >> Hi Dmitry, Andrey and others, >> >> Do you have any comments to this series ? >> > > I don't see justification for adding all these non-instrumented functions. We need only some subset of these functions > and only on powerpc so far. Arches that don't use str*() that early simply doesn't need not-instrumented __str*() variant. > > Also I don't think that auto-replace str* to __str* for all not instrumented files is a good idea, as this will reduce KASAN coverage. > E.g. we don't instrument slub.c but there is no reason to use non-instrumented __str*() functions there. Ok, I didn't see it that way. In fact I was seeing the opposite and was considering it as an opportunity to increase KASAN coverage. E.g.: at the time being things like the above (from arch/xtensa/include/asm/string.h) are not covered at all I believe: #define __HAVE_ARCH_STRCPY static inline char *strcpy(char *__dest, const char *__src) { register char *__xdest = __dest; unsigned long __dummy; __asm__ __volatile__("1:\n\t" "l8ui %2, %1, 0\n\t" "s8i %2, %0, 0\n\t" "addi %1, %1, 1\n\t" "addi %0, %0, 1\n\t" "bnez %2, 1b\n\t" : "=r" (__dest), "=r" (__src), "=&r" (__dummy) : "0" (__dest), "1" (__src) : "memory"); return __xdest; } In my series, I have deactivated optimised string functions when KASAN is selected like arm64 do. See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1055780/ But not every arch does that, meaning that some string functions remains not instrumented at all. Also, I was seeing it as a way to reduce impact on performance with KASAN. Because instrumenting each byte access of the non-optimised string functions is a performance genocide. > > And finally, this series make bug reporting slightly worse. E.g. let's look at strcpy(): > > +char *strcpy(char *dest, const char *src) > +{ > + size_t len = __strlen(src) + 1; > + > + check_memory_region((unsigned long)src, len, false, _RET_IP_); > + check_memory_region((unsigned long)dest, len, true, _RET_IP_); > + > + return __strcpy(dest, src); > +} > > If src is not-null terminated string we might not see proper out-of-bounds report from KASAN only a crash in __strlen(). > Which might make harder to identify where 'src' comes from, where it was allocated and what's the size of allocated area. > > >> I'd like to know if this approach is ok or if it is better to keep doing as in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1055788/ >> > I think the patch from link is a better solution to the problem. > Ok, I'll stick with it then. Thanks for your feedback Christophe