[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH v2 02/10] x86_64: add KASan support
On 10/01/2014 07:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/10/2014 10:31 PM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> On 09/11/2014 08:01 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 09/10/2014 07:31 AM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>>> This patch add arch specific code for kernel address sanitizer.
>>>> 16TB of virtual addressed used for shadow memory.
>>>> It's located in range [0xffff800000000000 - 0xffff900000000000]
>>>> Therefore PAGE_OFFSET has to be changed from 0xffff880000000000
>>>> to 0xffff900000000000.
>>> NAK on this.
>>> 0xffff880000000000 is the lowest usable address because we have agreed
>>> to leave 0xffff800000000000-0xffff880000000000 for the hypervisor or
>>> other non-OS uses.
>>> Bumping PAGE_OFFSET seems needlessly messy, why not just designate a
>>> zone higher up in memory?
>> I already answered to Dave why I choose to place shadow bellow PAGE_OFFSET (answer copied bellow).
>> In short - yes, shadow could be higher. But for some sort of kernel bugs we could have confusing oopses in kasan kernel.
> Confusing how? I presume you are talking about something trying to
> touch a non-canonical address, which is usually a very blatant type of bug.
> -hpa

For those kinds of bugs we normally get general protection fault.

With inline instrumented kasan we could get either general protection fault,
or unhandled page fault on "kasan_mem_to_shadow(non_canonical_address)" address.
I assume that the last case could be a bit confusing.

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-01 19:01    [W:0.231 / U:5.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site