Re: [PATCH v2] kasan: fix deadlock in start_report()

[Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 6:00 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Yes. I'm including Vincenzo's patch below (part of fixing some potential
> strscpy() faults with its unaligned accesses eager reading; we'll get to
> posting that eventually). You can add some arch_kasan_enable/disable()
> macros on top and feel free to include the patch below.

Ah, perfect! I'll send a patchset soon. Thanks!

> Now, I wonder whether we should link those into kasan_disable_current().
> These functions only deal with the depth for KASAN_SW_TAGS but it would
> make sense for KASAN_HW_TAGS to enable tag-check-override so that we
> don't need to bother with a match-all tags on pointer dereferencing.

Using these TCO routines requires having (at least) migration disabled, right?

It's not a problem for KASAN reporting code, as it already disables
preemption anyway.

The question is with the other kasan_disable/enable_current() call
sites. But as within all of them, the code does either a single access
or a memcpy or something similar, I think we can disable preemption
for that duration.

On a related note, I recalled that we also have a bug about using
supporting no_sanitize_address for HW_TAGS KASAN. And Peter suggested
using TCO entry/exit instrumentation to resolve it [2]. However, we
will also need to disable preemption for the duration of
no_sanitize_address-annotated functions, and I'm not sure if it's a
good idea to do that via compiler instrumentation.

Any thoughts?

In the mean time, I'll send a simpler patchset without converting all
kasan_disable/enable_current().

[1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212513
[2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212513#c2