On 7/22/19 12:52 PM, Walter Wu wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 19:11 +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>
>> On 7/15/19 6:06 AM, Walter Wu wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2019-07-12 at 13:52 +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/11/19 1:06 PM, Walter Wu wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 21:24 +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/9/19 5:53 AM, Walter Wu wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 19:33 +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/5/19 4:34 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 11:56 AM Walter Wu <walter-zh...@mediatek.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry for delays. I am overwhelm by some urgent work. I afraid to
>>>>>>>>> promise any dates because the next week I am on a conference, then
>>>>>>>>> again a backlog and an intern starting...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrey, do you still have concerns re this patch? This change allows
>>>>>>>>> to print the free stack.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I 'm not sure that quarantine is a best way to do that. Quarantine is
>>>>>>>> made to delay freeing, but we don't that here.
>>>>>>>> If we want to remember more free stacks wouldn't be easier simply to
>>>>>>>> remember more stacks in object itself?
>>>>>>>> Same for previously used tags for better use-after-free identification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Andrey,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We ever tried to use object itself to determine use-after-free
>>>>>>> identification, but tag-based KASAN immediately released the pointer
>>>>>>> after call kfree(), the original object will be used by another
>>>>>>> pointer, if we use object itself to determine use-after-free issue, then
>>>>>>> it has many false negative cases. so we create a lite quarantine(ring
>>>>>>> buffers) to record recent free stacks in order to avoid those false
>>>>>>> negative situations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm telling that *more* than one free stack and also tags per object can
>>>>>> be stored.
>>>>>> If object reused we would still have information about n-last usages of
>>>>>> the object.
>>>>>> It seems like much easier and more efficient solution than patch you
>>>>>> proposing.
>>>>>>
>>>>> To make the object reused, we must ensure that no other pointers uses it
>>>>> after kfree() release the pointer.
>>>>> Scenario:
>>>>> 1). The object reused information is valid when no another pointer uses
>>>>> it.
>>>>> 2). The object reused information is invalid when another pointer uses
>>>>> it.
>>>>> Do you mean that the object reused is scenario 1) ?
>>>>> If yes, maybe we can change the calling quarantine_put() location. It
>>>>> will be fully use that quarantine, but at scenario 2) it looks like to
>>>>> need this patch.
>>>>> If no, maybe i miss your meaning, would you tell me how to use invalid
>>>>> object information? or?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> KASAN keeps information about object with the object, right after payload
>>>> in the kasan_alloc_meta struct.
>>>> This information is always valid as long as slab page allocated. Currently
>>>> it keeps only one last free stacktrace.
>>>> It could be extended to record more free stacktraces and also record
>>>> previously used tags which will allow you
>>>> to identify use-after-free and extract right free stacktrace.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your explanation.
>>>
>>> For extend slub object, if one record is 9B (sizeof(u8)+ sizeof(struct
>>> kasan_track)) and add five records into slub object, every slub object
>>> may add 45B usage after the system runs longer.
>>> Slub object number is easy more than 1,000,000(maybe it may be more
>>> bigger), then the extending object memory usage should be 45MB, and
>>> unfortunately it is no limit. The memory usage is more bigger than our
>>> patch.
>>
>> No, it's not necessarily more.
>> And there are other aspects to consider such as performance, how simple
>> reliable the code is.
>>
>>>
>>> We hope tag-based KASAN advantage is smaller memory usage. If it’s
>>> possible, we should spend less memory in order to identify
>>> use-after-free. Would you accept our patch after fine tune it?
>>
>> Sure, if you manage to fix issues and demonstrate that performance penalty
>> of your
>> patch is close to zero.
>
>
> I remember that there are already the lists which you concern. Maybe we
> can try to solve those problems one by one.
>
> 1. deadlock issue? cause by kmalloc() after kfree()?
smp_call_on_cpu()
> 2. decrease allocation fail, to modify GFP_NOWAIT flag to GFP_KERNEL?
No, this is not gonna work. Ideally we shouldn't have any allocations there.
It's not reliable and it hurts performance.
> 3. check whether slim 48 bytes (sizeof (qlist_object) +
> sizeof(kasan_alloc_meta)) and additional unique stacktrace in
> stackdepot?
> 4. duplicate struct 'kasan_track' information in two different places
>
Yup.
> Would you have any other concern? or?
>
It would be nice to see some performance numbers. Something that uses slab
allocations a lot, e.g. netperf STREAM_STREAM test.
