[PATCH 3/4] gfp: mm: introduce __GFP_NOINIT
Alexander Potapenko
glider at google.com
Tue May 14 14:39:56 UTC 2019
From: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 11, 2019 at 9:28 AM
To: Alexander Potapenko
Cc: Kees Cook, Andrew Morton, Christoph Lameter, Laura Abbott,
Linux-MM, linux-security-module, Kernel Hardening, Masahiro Yamada,
James Morris, Serge E. Hallyn, Nick Desaulniers, Kostya Serebryany,
Dmitry Vyukov, Sandeep Patil, Randy Dunlap, Jann Horn, Mark Rutland,
Matthew Wilcox
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 6:53 PM Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org>
> > Date: Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:16 PM
> > To: Alexander Potapenko
> > Cc: Andrew Morton, Christoph Lameter, Kees Cook, Laura Abbott,
> > Linux-MM, linux-security-module, Kernel Hardening, Masahiro Yamada,
> > James Morris, Serge E. Hallyn, Nick Desaulniers, Kostya Serebryany,
> > Dmitry Vyukov, Sandeep Patil, Randy Dunlap, Jann Horn, Mark Rutland
> >
> > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 8:38 AM Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> wrote:
> > > > When passed to an allocator (either pagealloc or SL[AOU]B), __GFP_NOINIT
> > > > tells it to not initialize the requested memory if the init_on_alloc
> > > > boot option is enabled. This can be useful in the cases newly allocated
> > > > memory is going to be initialized by the caller right away.
> > > >
> > > > __GFP_NOINIT doesn't affect init_on_free behavior, except for SLOB,
> > > > where init_on_free implies init_on_alloc.
> > > >
> > > > __GFP_NOINIT basically defeats the hardening against information leaks
> > > > provided by init_on_alloc, so one should use it with caution.
> > > >
> > > > This patch also adds __GFP_NOINIT to alloc_pages() calls in SL[AOU]B.
> > > > Doing so is safe, because the heap allocators initialize the pages they
> > > > receive before passing memory to the callers.
> > > >
> > > > Slowdown for the initialization features compared to init_on_free=0,
> > > > init_on_alloc=0:
> > > >
> > > > hackbench, init_on_free=1: +6.84% sys time (st.err 0.74%)
> > > > hackbench, init_on_alloc=1: +7.25% sys time (st.err 0.72%)
> > > >
> > > > Linux build with -j12, init_on_free=1: +8.52% wall time (st.err 0.42%)
> > > > Linux build with -j12, init_on_free=1: +24.31% sys time (st.err 0.47%)
> > > > Linux build with -j12, init_on_alloc=1: -0.16% wall time (st.err 0.40%)
> > > > Linux build with -j12, init_on_alloc=1: +1.24% sys time (st.err 0.39%)
> > > >
> > > > The slowdown for init_on_free=0, init_on_alloc=0 compared to the
> > > > baseline is within the standard error.
> > > >
>
> Not sure, but I think this patch will clash with Matthew's posted patch series
> *Remove 'order' argument from many mm functions*.
Not sure I can do much with that before those patches reach mainline.
Once they do, I'll update my patches.
Please let me know if there's a better way to resolve such conflicts.
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>
> > > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org>
> > > > Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
> > > > Cc: James Morris <jmorris at namei.org>
> > > > Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge at hallyn.com>
> > > > Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers at google.com>
> > > > Cc: Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com>
> > > > Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com>
> > > > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org>
> > > > Cc: Sandeep Patil <sspatil at android.com>
> > > > Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott at redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap at infradead.org>
> > > > Cc: Jann Horn <jannh at google.com>
> > > > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> > > > Cc: linux-mm at kvack.org
> > > > Cc: linux-security-module at vger.kernel.org
> > > > Cc: kernel-hardening at lists.openwall.com
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/gfp.h | 6 +++++-
> > > > include/linux/mm.h | 2 +-
> > > > kernel/kexec_core.c | 2 +-
> > > > mm/slab.c | 2 +-
> > > > mm/slob.c | 3 ++-
> > > > mm/slub.c | 1 +
> > > > 6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > > index fdab7de7490d..66d7f5604fe2 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> > > > #else
> > > > #define ___GFP_NOLOCKDEP 0
> > > > #endif
> > > > +#define ___GFP_NOINIT 0x1000000u
> > >
> > > I mentioned this in the other patch, but I think this needs to be
> > > moved ahead of GFP_NOLOCKDEP and adjust the values for GFP_NOLOCKDEP
> > > and to leave the IS_ENABLED() test in __GFP_BITS_SHIFT alone.
> > Do we really need this blinking GFP_NOLOCKDEP bit at all?
> > This approach doesn't scale, we can't even have a second feature that
> > has a bit depending on the config settings.
> > Cannot we just fix the number of bits instead?
> >
> > > > /* If the above are modified, __GFP_BITS_SHIFT may need updating */
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > @@ -208,16 +209,19 @@ struct vm_area_struct;
> > > > * %__GFP_COMP address compound page metadata.
> > > > *
> > > > * %__GFP_ZERO returns a zeroed page on success.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * %__GFP_NOINIT requests non-initialized memory from the underlying allocator.
> > > > */
> > > > #define __GFP_NOWARN ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_NOWARN)
> > > > #define __GFP_COMP ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_COMP)
> > > > #define __GFP_ZERO ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_ZERO)
> > > > +#define __GFP_NOINIT ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_NOINIT)
> > > >
> > > > /* Disable lockdep for GFP context tracking */
> > > > #define __GFP_NOLOCKDEP ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_NOLOCKDEP)
> > > >
> > > > /* Room for N __GFP_FOO bits */
> > > > -#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT (23 + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP))
> > > > +#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT (25)
> > >
> > > AIUI, this will break non-CONFIG_LOCKDEP kernels: it should just be:
> > >
> > > -#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT (23 + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP))
> > > +#define __GFP_BITS_SHIFT (24 + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP))
> > >
> > > > #define __GFP_BITS_MASK ((__force gfp_t)((1 << __GFP_BITS_SHIFT) - 1))
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > > > index ee1a1092679c..8ab152750eb4 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > > > @@ -2618,7 +2618,7 @@ DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(init_on_alloc);
> > > > static inline bool want_init_on_alloc(gfp_t flags)
> > > > {
> > > > if (static_branch_unlikely(&init_on_alloc))
> > > > - return true;
> > > > + return !(flags & __GFP_NOINIT);
> > > > return flags & __GFP_ZERO;
> > >
> > > What do you think about renaming __GFP_NOINIT to __GFP_NO_AUTOINIT or something?
> > >
> > > Regardless, yes, this is nice.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kees Cook
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexander Potapenko
> > Software Engineer
> >
> > Google Germany GmbH
> > Erika-Mann-Straße, 33
> > 80636 München
> >
> > Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
> > Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
> > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
> >
--
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer
Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-Straße, 33
80636 München
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list