Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1313839
| From | Laura Abbott <laura@labbott.name> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Sanitization of slabs based on grsecurity/PaX |
| Date | 2016-01-21 04:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qTegi-7QO-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <qNMNI-3T4-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qOlBN-29Y-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <qOu2n-7SE-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qOFTR-7OQ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQHeO-1eM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 1/13/16 7:49 PM, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 1/8/16 6:07 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Laura Abbott wrote: >> >>> The slub_debug=P not only poisons it enables other consistency checks on the >>> slab as well, assuming my understanding of what check_object does is correct. >>> My hope was to have the poison part only and none of the consistency checks in >>> an attempt to mitigate performance issues. I misunderstood when the checks >>> actually run and how SLUB_DEBUG was used. >> >> Ok I see that there pointer check is done without checking the >> corresponding debug flag. Patch attached thar fixes it. >> >>> Another option would be to have a flag like SLAB_NO_SANITY_CHECK. >>> sanitization enablement would just be that and SLAB_POISON >>> in the debug options. The disadvantage to this approach would be losing >>> the sanitization for ->ctor caches (the grsecurity version works around this >>> by re-initializing with ->ctor, I haven't heard any feedback if this actually >>> acceptable) and not having some of the fast paths enabled >>> (assuming I'm understanding the code path correctly.) which would also >>> be a performance penalty >> >> I think we simply need to fix the missing check there. There is already a >> flag SLAB_DEBUG_FREE for the pointer checks. >> >> > > The patch improves performance but the overall performance of these full > sanitization patches is still significantly better than slub_debug=P. I'll > put some effort into seeing if I can figure out where the slow down is > coming from. > There are quite a few other checks which need to be skipped over as well, but I don't think skipping those are going to be sufficient to give an acceptable performance; a quick 'hackbench -g 20 -l 1000' shows at least a 3.5 second difference between just skipping all the checks+slab_debug=P and this series. The SLAB_DEBUG flags force everything to skip the CPU caches which is causing the slow down. I experimented with allowing the debugging to happen with CPU caches but I'm not convinced it's possible to do the checking on the fast path in a consistent manner without adding locking. Is it worth refactoring the debugging to be able to be used on cpu caches or should I take the approach here of having the clear be separate from free_debug_processing? Thanks, Laura
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Sanitization of slabs based on grsecurity/PaX Laura Abbott <laura@labbott.name> - 2016-01-21 04:40 +0100 Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Sanitization of slabs based on grsecurity/PaX Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> - 2016-01-21 16:40 +0100
csiph-web