|| ||Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org> |
|| ||Arjan van de Ven <arjan-AT-infradead.org> |
|| ||Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page
|| ||Thu, 28 May 2009 21:36:01 +0200|
|| ||Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "Larry H." <research-AT-subreption.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>, Rik van Riel <riel-AT-redhat.com>, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-osdl.org>, linux-mm-AT-kvack.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-redhat.com>, pageexec-AT-freemail.hu|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 08:56 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 09:09:10 +0100
> Alan Cox <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > Enabling SLAB poisoning by default will be a bad idea
> > Why ?
> > > I looked for unused/re-usable flags too, but found none. It's
> > > interesting to see SLUB and SLOB have their own page flags. Did
> > > anybody oppose those when they were proposed?
> > Certainly they were looked at - but the memory allocator is right at
> > the core of the system rather than an add on.
> > > > Ditto - which is why I'm coming from the position of an "if we
> > > > free it clear it" option. If you need that kind of security the
> > > > cost should be more than acceptable - especially with modern
> > > > processors that can do cache bypass on the clears.
> > >
> > > Are you proposing that we should simply remove the confidential
> > > flags and just stick to the unconditional sanitization when the
> > > boot option is enabled? If positive, it will make things more
> > > simple and definitely is better than nothing. I would have (still)
> > > preferred the other old approach to be merged, but whatever works
> > > at this point.
> > I am because
> > - its easy to merge
> > - its non controversial
> > - it meets the security good practice and means we don't miss any
> > alloc/free cases
> > - it avoid providing flags to help a trojan identify "interesting"
> > data to acquire
> > - modern cpu memory clearing can be very cheap
> ... and if we zero on free, we don't need to zero on allocate.
> While this is a little controversial, it does mean that at least part of
> the cost is just time-shifted, which means it'll not be TOO bad
zero on allocate has the advantage of cache hotness, we're going to use
the memory, why else allocate it.
zero on free only causes extra cache evictions for no gain.
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to email@example.com. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"firstname.lastname@example.org"> email@example.com </a>
to post comments)