[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKif5UUMBbQBpB7Ha7w0L+su8dSXDU3nbccO3EBnv7bTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:41:56 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Hoeun Ryu <hoeun.ryu@...il.com>,
PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH 04/11] x86: Implement __arch_rare_write_begin/unmap()
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> Based on PaX's x86 pax_{open,close}_kernel() implementation, this
>> allows HAVE_ARCH_RARE_WRITE to work on x86.
>>
>
>> +
>> +static __always_inline unsigned long __arch_rare_write_begin(void)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long cr0;
>> +
>> + preempt_disable();
>
> This looks wrong. DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()) would work,
> as would local_irq_disable(). There's no way that just disabling
> preemption is enough.
>
> (Also, how does this interact with perf nmis?)
Do you mean preempt_disable() isn't strong enough here? I'm open to
suggestions. The goal would be to make sure nothing between _begin and
_end would get executed without interruption...
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel 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.
