[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJ+8v_hMkV91jqNGwFdzbpoKL=gZv-92hGMF8d4o8DswQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:25:12 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...tec.com>, Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@...ian.org>,
Emrah Demir <ed@...sec.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prefer kASLR over Hibernation
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote:
>>
>> Why is kASLR incompatible with hibernation? We can hibernate have
>> 4.3 kernel resume hibernation image of 4.2 kernel (on x86-64, and I
>> have patches for x86). Resuming kernel with different randomization
>> does not look that much different...
>
> Oh, I'd absolutely prefer to just allow kaslr together with
> hibernation if it actually works.
>
> Could the people who piped up to say that they actually use
> hibernation just try passing in the "kaslr" command line option on
> their machine, and see if it works for them? We could just remove the
> "no kaslr with hibername" code - or at least limit it to 32-bit for
> now..
>
> Because that would be lovely.
This is where our original investigation of having them coexist ended:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/15/180
To quote Rafael Wysocki:
> We're jumping from the boot kernel into the image kernel. The virtual address
> comes from the image kernel, but the boot kernel has to use it. The only way
> we can ensure that we'll jump to the right place is to pass the physical address
> in the header (otherwise we de facto assume that the virtual address of the
> target page frame will be the same in both the boot and the image kernels).
>
> The missing piece is that the code in swsusp_arch_resume() sets up temporary
> page tables to ensure that they won't be overwritten while copying the last
> remaining image kernel pages to the right page frames (those page tables
> have to be stored in page frames that are free from the kernel image perspective).
>
> But if the kernel address space is randomized, set_up_temporary_mappings()
> really should duplicate the existing layout instead of creating a new one from
> scratch. Otherwise, virtual addresses before set_up_temporary_mappings() may
> be different from the ones after it.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security
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.
