From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mm: Shuffle initial free memory
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:32:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jQ2A7cDJ65+wzR=O3aabuh8p_yu9VNbpRF0A3QLUdGpA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+PStxYhiJaWM-mt4+WWbS_WAfvyHoyZYD5ndDLN2SY6w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > While SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM reduces the predictability of some local slab
> > caches it leaves vast bulk of memory to be predictably in order
> > allocated. That ordering can be detected by a memory side-cache.
> >
> > The shuffling is done in terms of CONFIG_SHUFFLE_PAGE_ORDER sized free
> > pages where the default CONFIG_SHUFFLE_PAGE_ORDER is MAX_ORDER-1 i.e.
> > 10, 4MB this trades off randomization granularity for time spent
> > shuffling. MAX_ORDER-1 was chosen to be minimally invasive to the page
> > allocator while still showing memory-side cache behavior improvements,
> > and the expectation that the security implications of finer granularity
> > randomization is mitigated by CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_RANDOM.
>
> Perhaps it would help some of the detractors of this feature to make
> this a runtime choice? Some benchmarks show improvements, some show
> regressions. It could just be up to the admin to turn this on/off
> given their paranoia levels? (i.e. the shuffling could become a no-op
> with a given specific boot param?)
Yes, I think it's a valid concern to not turn this on for everybody
given the potential for performance regression. For the next version
I'll add some runtime detection for a memory-side-cache to set the
default on/off, and include a command line override for the paranoid
that want in on regardless of the presence of such a cache.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-15 22:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-11 1:36 [PATCH v4 0/3] Randomize " Dan Williams
2018-10-11 1:36 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] mm: Shuffle initial " Dan Williams
2018-10-15 22:25 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-15 22:32 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2018-10-16 11:12 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-11 1:36 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: Move buddy list manipulations into helpers Dan Williams
2018-10-11 1:36 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] mm: Maintain randomization of page free lists Dan Williams
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='CAPcyv4jQ2A7cDJ65+wzR=O3aabuh8p_yu9VNbpRF0A3QLUdGpA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.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