Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> Hi Larry,
>
> On 10:35 Sat 30 May, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> The GFP_SENSITIVE flag looks like a big hammer that we don't really
>>> need IMHO. It seems to me that most of the actual call-sites (crypto
>>> code, wireless keys, etc.) should probably just use kzfree()
>>> unconditionally to make sure we don't leak sensitive data. I did not
>>> look too closely but I don't think any of the sensitive kfree() calls
>>> are in fastpaths so the performance impact is negligible.
>
> Larry H. wrote:
>> That's hopeless, and kzfree is broken. Like I said in my earlier reply,
>> please test that yourself to see the results. Whoever wrote that ignored
>> how SLAB/SLUB work and if kzfree had been used somewhere in the kernel
>> before, it should have been noticed long time ago.
>
> An open-coded version of kzfree was being used in the kernel:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=00fcf2cb6f6bb421851c3ba062c0a36760ea6e53
>
> Can we now get to the part where you explain how it's broken 
> because I obviously "ignored how SLAB/SLUB works"?

Yeah, kzfree() sounds like the right approach for all places that 
know it for sure that they dont want information to persist.

	Ingo