Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 11:19:55 -0800
From: Kristen Carlson Accardi <>
To: Kees Cook <>
Cc: Jann Horn <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, Ingo
 Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>, "H . Peter
 Anvin" <>,  Arjan van de Ven <>, Rick
 Edgecombe <>, the arch/x86 maintainers
 <>, kernel list <>, Kernel
 Hardening <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 09/11] kallsyms: hide layout and expose seed

On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 11:08 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 11:01:56AM -0800, Kristen Carlson Accardi
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-02-06 at 20:27 +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > >
> > 
> > I looked through some of these packages as Jann suggested, and it
> > seems
> > like there are several that are using /proc/kallsyms to look for
> > specific symbol names to determine whether some feature has been
> > compiled into the kernel. This practice seems dubious to me,
> > knowing
> > that many kernel symbol names can be changed at any time, but
> > regardless seems to be fairly common.
> Cool, so a sorted censored list is fine for non-root. Would root
> users
> break on a symbol-name-sorted view? (i.e. are two lists needed or can
> we
> stick to one?)

Internally of course we'll always have to have 2 lists. I couldn't find
any examples of even root users needing the list to be in order by
address. At the same time, it feels like a less risky thing to do to
leave root users with the same thing they've always had and only muck
with non-root users.

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.