Re: [PATCH] Make /proc/slabinfo 0400

[Matt Mackall]

On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 09:48 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > We need to either keep the bad guys away from the counts (this patch),
> > or de-correlate the counts moving around with the position of objects in
> > the slab.  Ted's suggestion is a good one, and the only other thing I
> > can think of is to make the values useless, perhaps by batching and
> > delaying the (exposed) counts by a random amount.
> 
> We might just decide to expose the 'active' count for regular users
> (and then, in case there are tools there that parse this as normal
> users, we could set the 'total' fields to be the same as the active
> one, possibly rounded up to the slab allocation or something.
> 
> I know, I know, from a memory usage standpoint, 'active' is secondary,
> but it still correlates fairly well, so it's still useful.  And for
> seeing memory leaks (as opposed to slab fragmentation etc issues),
> it's actually the interesting case.
> 
> And at the same time, it's actually much less involved with actual
> physical allocations than 'total' is, and thus much less of an attack
> vector. The fact that we got another socket allocation when we opened
> a new socket is not "useful" information for an attacker, not in the
> way it is to see a hint of _where_ the socket got allocated.
> 
> Of course, as you say, '/proc/meminfo' still does give you the trigger
> for "oh, now somebody actually allocated a new page". That's totally
> independent of slabinfo, though (and knowing the number of active
> slabs would neither help nor hurt somebody who uses meminfo - you
> might as well allocate new sockets in a loop, and use _only_ meminfo
> to see when that allocated a new page).

I think lying to the user is much worse than changing the permissions.
The cost of the resulting confusion is WAY higher.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/