From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Yuri Gribov <tetra2005@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64/kasan: don't allocate extra shadow memory
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 19:38:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+a7BE25V=dyPCaaO3Tg2kwD04Fq2=U8qgFWDuQGvo_kcw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+Z02Un5DEjmhow4bSLOBygoC2mg7t_KKGn64WnWXQw0qw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> We used to read several bytes of the shadow memory in advance.
>>>>>>> Therefore additional shadow memory mapped to prevent crash if
>>>>>>> speculative load would happen near the end of the mapped shadow memory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now we don't have such speculative loads, so we no longer need to map
>>>>>>> additional shadow memory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see that patch 1 fixed up the Linux helpers for outline
>>>>>> instrumentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to check, is it also true that the inline instrumentation never
>>>>>> performs unaligned accesses to the shadow memory?
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct, inline instrumentation assumes that all accesses are properly aligned as it
>>> required by C standard. I knew that the kernel violates this rule in many places,
>>> therefore I decided to add checks for unaligned accesses in outline case.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Inline instrumentation generally accesses only a single byte.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to be a little pedantic, but does that mean we'll never access the
>>>> additional shadow, or does that mean it's very unlikely that we will?
>>>>
>>>> I'm guessing/hoping it's the former!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Outline will never access additional shadow byte: https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerAlgorithm#unaligned-accesses
>>
>> s/Outline/inline of course.
>
>
> I suspect that actual implementations have diverged from that
> description. Trying to follow asan_expand_check_ifn in:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/asan.c?revision=246703&view=markup
> but it's not trivial.
>
> +Yuri, maybe you know off the top of your head if asan instrumentation
> in gcc ever accesses off-by-one shadow byte (i.e. 1 byte after actual
> object end)?
Thinking of this more. There is at least 1 case in user-space asan
where off-by-one shadow access would lead to similar crashes: for
mmap-ed regions we don't have redzones and map shadow only for the
region itself, so any off-by-one access would lead to crashes. So I
guess we are safe here. Or at least any crash would be gcc bug.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-01 17:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-01 16:23 [PATCH 1/4] mm/kasan: get rid of speculative shadow checks Andrey Ryabinin
2017-06-01 16:23 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86/kasan: don't allocate extra shadow memory Andrey Ryabinin
2017-06-01 16:23 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64/kasan: " Andrey Ryabinin
2017-06-01 16:34 ` Mark Rutland
2017-06-01 16:45 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2017-06-01 16:52 ` Mark Rutland
2017-06-01 16:59 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-06-01 17:00 ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-06-01 17:05 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2017-06-01 17:38 ` Dmitry Vyukov [this message]
2017-06-01 16:23 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm/kasan: Add support for memory hotplug Andrey Ryabinin
2017-06-01 17:45 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm/kasan: get rid of speculative shadow checks Dmitry Vyukov
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='CACT4Y+a7BE25V=dyPCaaO3Tg2kwD04Fq2=U8qgFWDuQGvo_kcw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=tetra2005@gmail.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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