Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] mm/page_alloc: clear pages in alloc_contig_pages() with init_on_alloc=1 or __GFP_ZERO | From | David Hildenbrand <> | Date | Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:32:25 +0100 |
| |
On 11.11.20 11:22, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 11-11-20 11:05:21, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 11.11.20 10:58, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>> On 11/11/20 10:06 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 11.11.20 09:47, Michal Hocko wrote: >>>>> On Tue 10-11-20 20:32:40, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>> commit 6471384af2a6 ("mm: security: introduce init_on_alloc=1 and >>>>>> init_on_free=1 boot options") resulted with init_on_alloc=1 in all pages >>>>>> leaving the buddy via alloc_pages() and friends to be >>>>>> initialized/cleared/zeroed on allocation. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, the same logic is currently not applied to >>>>>> alloc_contig_pages(): allocated pages leaving the buddy aren't cleared >>>>>> with init_on_alloc=1 and init_on_free=0. Let's also properly clear >>>>>> pages on that allocation path and add support for __GFP_ZERO. >>>>> >>>>> AFAIR we do not have any user for __GFP_ZERO right? Not that this is >>>> >>>> Sorry, I had extended information under "---" but accidentally >>>> regenerated the patch before sending it out. >>>> >>>> __GFP_ZERO is not used yet. It's intended to be used in >>>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201029162718.29910-1-david@redhat.com >>>> and I can move that change into a separate patch if desired. > > OK, it would make sense to add it with its user. > >>>>> harmful but it is better to call that explicitly because a missing >>>>> implementation would be a real problem and as such a bug fix. >>>>> >>>>> I am also not sure handling init_on_free at the higher level is good. >>>>> As we have discussed recently the primary point of this feature is to >>>>> add clearing at very few well defined entry points rather than spill it over >>>>> many places. In this case the entry point for the allocator is >>>>> __isolate_free_page which removes pages from the page allocator. I >>>>> haven't checked how much this is used elsewhere but I would expect >>>>> init_on_alloc to be handled there. >>>> >>>> Well, this is the entry point to our range allocator, which lives in >>>> page_alloc.c - used by actual high-level allocators (CMA, gigantic >>>> pages, etc). It's just a matter of taste where we want to have that >>>> handling exactly inside our allocator. > > Yes I completely agree here. I just believe it should the lowest we can > achieve. > >>> I agree alloc_contig_range() is fine as an entry point. >> >> Thanks, let's see if Michal insists of having this somewhere inside >> isolate_freepages_range() instead. > > It's not that I would be insisting. I am just pointing out that changes > like this one go against the idea of init_on_alloc because it is adding > more special casing and long term more places to be really careful about > when one has to be really careful to not undermine the security aspect > of the feature. I haven't really checked why compaction is not the > problem but I suspect it is the fact that it unconditionally copy the > full page content to the isolated page so there is no way to sneak > any data leak there. That is fine. We should however make that clear by
Exactly.
> using a special cased function which skips this particular > initialization and make sure everybody else will just do the right thing > without much thinking.
I totally agree, but I think we don't have many places where free pages actually leave the buddy besides alloc_pages() and friends (compaction is something special). I agree having a single place to handle that would be preferred. I'll have a look if that can be reworked without doing too much harm / affecting other hot paths.
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
| |