[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVAmVNA0dFmD+HvVJjokqmU+pXHv7OAc_jajB1Uk=X1oA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:38:06 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce post-init read-only memory
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:14 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 11/29/15 00:05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> - print a warning and a backtrace, and just mark the page read-write
>>>>>> so that the machine survives, but we get notified and can fix whatever
>>>>>> broken code
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems very easy to add. Should I basically reverse the effects of
>>>>> mark_rodata_ro(), or should I only make the new ro-after-init section as RW?
>>>>> (I think the former would be easier.)
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest verifying that the page in question is .data..ro_after_init and, if
>>>> so, marking that one page RW.
>>>
>>> Yes, this was PaX's suggestion as well, and I agree: doing that turns a quite
>>> possibly unrecoverable boot/shutdown time or suspend/resume time (suspend is
>>> really a special category of 'bootup') crasher oops into a more informative stack
>>> dump.
>>>
>>> These ro related faults tend to trigger when init/deinit is running, and oopsing
>>> in those sequences is typically a lot less survivable than say oopsing in a high
>>> level system call while not holding locks.
>>>
>>
>> I think what should do is have a debug option which can be set to "rw",
>> "log" or "oops"; the latter should probably be the default.
>
> Can someone write that patch, and then I will include it in the
> series? I haven't touched fault handler code, and it would be faster
> if someone more familiar with that area did it. :)
I think I can do it in a week or two if no one beats me to it.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
