Git-Mirrors/hardened_malloc
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/GrapheneOS/hardened_malloc.git synced 2024-06-26 14:42:27 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

update README now that arenas are implemented

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Daniel Micay 2019-03-25 16:14:54 -04:00
parent c5e911419d
commit 494cc5ec50
1 changed files with 19 additions and 17 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

36
README.md
View File

@ -6,8 +6,9 @@ against heap corruption vulnerabilities. The security-focused design also leads
to much less metadata overhead and memory waste from fragmentation than a more
traditional allocator design. It aims to provide decent overall performance
with a focus on long-term performance and memory usage rather than allocator
micro-benchmarks. It has relatively fine-grained locking and will offer good
scalability once arenas are implemented.
micro-benchmarks. It offers scalability via a configurable number of entirely
independently arenas, with the internal locking within arenas further divided
up per size class.
This project currently aims to support Android, musl and glibc. It may support
other non-Linux operating systems in the future. For Android and musl, there
@ -413,21 +414,22 @@ As a baseline form of fine-grained locking, the slab allocator has entirely
separate allocators for each size class. Each size class has a dedicated lock,
CSPRNG and other state.
The slab allocator's scalability will primarily come from dividing up the slab
allocation region into separate arenas assigned to threads. The arenas will
essentially just be entirely separate slab allocators with the same sub-regions
for each size class. Having 4 arenas will simply require reserving a region 4
times as large and choosing the correct metadata based on address, similar to
how finding the slab and slot index within the slab already works. The part
that's still open to different design choices is how arenas are assigned to
threads. One approach is statically assigning arenas via round-robin like the
standard jemalloc implementation, or statically assigning to a random arena.
Another option is dynamic load balancing via a heuristic like `sched_getcpu`
for per-CPU arenas, which would offer better performance than randomly choosing
an arena each time while being more predictable for an attacker. There are
actually some security benefits from this assignment being completely static,
since it isolates threads from each other. Static assignment can also reduce
memory usage since threads may have varying usage of size classes.
The slab allocator's scalability primarily comes from dividing up the slab
allocation region into independent arenas assigned to threads. The arenas are
just entirely separate slab allocators with their own sub-regions for each size
class. Using 4 arenas reserves a region 4 times as large and the relevant slab
allocator metadata is determined based on address, as part of the same approach
to finding the per-size-class metadata. The part that's still open to different
design choices is how arenas are assigned to threads. One approach is
statically assigning arenas via round-robin like the standard jemalloc
implementation, or statically assigning to a random arena which is essentially
the current implementation. Another option is dynamic load balancing via a
heuristic like `sched_getcpu` for per-CPU arenas, which would offer better
performance than randomly choosing an arena each time while being more
predictable for an attacker. There are actually some security benefits from
this assignment being completely static, since it isolates threads from each
other. Static assignment can also reduce memory usage since threads may have
varying usage of size classes.
When there's substantial allocation or deallocation pressure, the allocator
does end up calling into the kernel to purge / protect unused slabs by