[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24e65dec-f452-a444-4382-d1f88fbb334c@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:03:49 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Randy Dunlap
<rdunlap@...radead.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Michal Hocko
<mhocko@...nel.org>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Jerome Glisse
<jglisse@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, "Christoph
Lameter" <cl@...ux.com>, linux-security-module
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Hardening
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v16 0/6] mm: security: ro protection for dynamic data
On 20/02/18 03:21, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:32:36PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> wrote:
>>> This patch-set introduces the possibility of protecting memory that has
>>> been allocated dynamically.
>>>
>>> The memory is managed in pools: when a memory pool is turned into R/O,
>>> all the memory that is part of it, will become R/O.
>>>
>>> A R/O pool can be destroyed, to recover its memory, but it cannot be
>>> turned back into R/W mode.
>>>
>>> This is intentional. This feature is meant for data that doesn't need
>>> further modifications after initialization.
>>
>> This series came up in discussions with Dave Chinner (and Matthew
>> Wilcox, already part of the discussion, and others) at LCA. I wonder
>> if XFS would make a good initial user of this, as it could allocate
>> all the function pointers and other const information about a
>> superblock in pmalloc(), keeping it separate from the R/W portions?
>> Could other filesystems do similar things?
>
> I wasn't cc'd on this patchset, (please use david@...morbit.com for
> future postings)
Apologies, somehow I didn't realize that I should have put you too in
CC. It will be fixed at the next iteration.
> so I can't really say anything about it right
> now. My interest for XFS was that we have a fair amount of static
> data in XFS that we set up at mount time and it never gets modified
> after that.
This is the typical use case I had in mind, although it requires a
conversion.
Ex:
before:
static int a;
void set_a(void)
{
a = 4;
}
after:
static int *a __ro_after_init;
struct gen_pool *pool;
void init_a(void)
{
pool = pmalloc_create_pool("pool", 0);
a = (int *)pmalloc(pool, sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
}
void set_a(void)
{
*a = 4;
pmalloc_protect_pool(pool);
}
> I'm not so worried about VFS level objects (that's a
> much more complex issue) but there is a lot of low hanging fruit in
> the XFS structures we could convert to write-once structures.
I'd be interested to have your review of the pmalloc API, if you think
something is missing, once I send out the next revision.
--
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.
