[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17e5b515-84c8-dca2-1695-cdf819834ea2@huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 17:05:25 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: Boris Lukashev <blukashev@...pervictus.com>
CC: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Kees Cook
<keescook@...omium.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Laura Abbott
<labbott@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Kernel
Hardening" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Protectable Memory
On 04/02/18 00:29, Boris Lukashev wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> wrote:
[...]
>> What you are suggesting, if I have understood it correctly, is that,
>> when the pool is protected, the addresses already given out, will become
>> traps that get resolved through a lookup table that is built based on
>> the content of each allocation.
>>
>> That seems to generate a lot of overhead, not to mention the fact that
>> it might not play very well with the MMU.
>
> That is effectively what i'm suggesting - as a form of protection for
> consumers against direct reads of data which may have been corrupted
> by some irrelevant means. In the context of pmalloc, it would probably
> be a separate type of ro+verified pool
ok, that seems more like an extension though.
ATM I am having problems gaining traction to get even the basic merged :-)
I would consider this as a possibility for future work, unless it is
said that it's necessary for pmalloc to be accepted ...
--
igor
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.
