From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
patches@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slab: remove HAVE_HARDENED_USERCOPY_ALLOCATOR
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 10:28:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9191d9b0-3318-4e70-a81b-69acff184fc6@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4674f97f-5f97-45b7-a4b9-a19ca46b7ce1@lucifer.local>
On 23.05.23 10:19, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 10:14:24AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 23.05.23 09:56, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 09:46:46AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/23 09:42, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 09:31:36AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>>>> With SLOB removed, both remaining allocators support hardened usercopy,
>>>>>> so remove the config and associated #ifdef.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> mm/Kconfig | 2 --
>>>>>> mm/slab.h | 9 ---------
>>>>>> security/Kconfig | 8 --------
>>>>>> 3 files changed, 19 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
>>>>>> index 7672a22647b4..041f0da42f2b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/Kconfig
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/Kconfig
>>>>>> @@ -221,7 +221,6 @@ choice
>>>>>> config SLAB
>>>>>> bool "SLAB"
>>>>>> depends on !PREEMPT_RT
>>>>>> - select HAVE_HARDENED_USERCOPY_ALLOCATOR
>>>>>> help
>>>>>> The regular slab allocator that is established and known to work
>>>>>> well in all environments. It organizes cache hot objects in
>>>>>> @@ -229,7 +228,6 @@ config SLAB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> config SLUB
>>>>>> bool "SLUB (Unqueued Allocator)"
>>>>>> - select HAVE_HARDENED_USERCOPY_ALLOCATOR
>>>>>> help
>>>>>> SLUB is a slab allocator that minimizes cache line usage
>>>>>> instead of managing queues of cached objects (SLAB approach).
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h
>>>>>> index f01ac256a8f5..695ef96b4b5b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/slab.h
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/slab.h
>>>>>> @@ -832,17 +832,8 @@ struct kmem_obj_info {
>>>>>> void __kmem_obj_info(struct kmem_obj_info *kpp, void *object, struct slab *slab);
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_HARDENED_USERCOPY_ALLOCATOR
>>>>>> void __check_heap_object(const void *ptr, unsigned long n,
>>>>>> const struct slab *slab, bool to_user);
>>>>>> -#else
>>>>>> -static inline
>>>>>> -void __check_heap_object(const void *ptr, unsigned long n,
>>>>>> - const struct slab *slab, bool to_user)
>>>>>> -{
>>>>>> -}
>>>>>> -#endif
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm, this is still defined in slab.c/slub.c and invoked in usercopy.c, do we
>>>>> not want the prototype?
>>>>
>>>> Well I didn't delete the prototype, just the ifdef/else around, so now it's
>>>> there unconditionally.
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps replacing with #ifdef
>>>>> CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY instead? I may be missing something here :)
>>>>
>>>> Putting it under that #ifdef would work and match that the implementations
>>>> of that function are under that same ifdef, but maybe it's unnecessary noise
>>>> in the header?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah my brain inserted extra '-'s there, sorry!
>>>
>>> Given we only define __check_heap_object() in sl[au]b.c if
>>> CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY wouldn't we need to keep the empty version around
>>> if !CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY since check_heap_object() appears to be called
>>> unconditionally?
>>>
>>
>> The file is only compiled with CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY:
>>
>> mm/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY) += usercopy.o
>>
>
> Yeah ugh at this sort of implicit thing. Anyway it'd be preferable to stick
> #ifdef CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY around the prototype just so it's
> abundantly clear this function doesn't exist unless that is set.
I recall that it is very common to not use ifdefs unless really
required. Because less ifefs are obviously preferable ;)
Compilation+linking will fail in any case.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-23 8:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-23 7:31 Vlastimil Babka
2023-05-23 7:42 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-05-23 7:46 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-05-23 7:56 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-05-23 8:14 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-05-23 8:19 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-05-23 8:28 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2023-05-24 7:15 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-05-23 17:02 ` Kees Cook
2023-05-24 0:31 ` David Rientjes
2023-05-24 6:15 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9191d9b0-3318-4e70-a81b-69acff184fc6@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lstoakes@gmail.com \
--cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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