lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] kvmalloc: always use vmalloc if CONFIG_DEBUG_SG


On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:29:14AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 08:06:16PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > Some bugs (such as buffer overflows) are better detected
> > > > with kmalloc code, so we must test the kmalloc path too.
> > >
> > > Well now, this brings up another item for the collective TODO list --
> > > implement redzone checks for vmalloc. Unless this is something already
> > > taken care of by kasan or similar.
> >
> > The kmalloc overflow testing is also not ideal - it rounds the size up to
> > the next slab size and detects buffer overflows only at this boundary.
> >
> > Some times ago, I made a "kmalloc guard" patch that places a magic number
> > immediatelly after the requested size - so that it can detect overflows at
> > byte boundary
> > ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2014-September/msg00018.html )
> >
> > That patch found a bug in crypto code:
> > ( http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1409.1/02325.html )
>
> Is it still worth doing this, now we have kasan?

The kmalloc guard has much lower overhead than kasan.

(BTW. when I tried kasan, it oopsed with persistent memory)

Mikulas

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-24 20:42    [W:0.213 / U:1.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site