[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200803193837.GB30810@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 15:38:37 -0400
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@...tuozzo.com>,
Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] Function Granular KASLR
Hi -
> > While this does seem to be the right solution for the extant problem, I
> > do want to take a moment and ask if the function sections need to be
> > exposed at all? What tools use this information, and do they just want
> > to see the bounds of the code region? (i.e. the start/end of all the
> > .text* sections) Perhaps .text.* could be excluded from the sysfs
> > section list?
> [[cc += FChE, see [0] for Evgenii's full mail ]]
Thanks!
> It looks like debugging tools like systemtap [1], gdb [2] and its
> add-symbol-file cmd, etc. peek at the /sys/module/<MOD>/section/ info.
> But yeah, it would be preferable if we didn't export a long sysfs
> representation if nobody actually needs it.
Systemtap needs to know base addresses of loaded text & data sections,
in order to perform relocation of probe point PCs and context data
addresses. It uses /sys/module/...., kind of under protest, because
there seems to exist no MODULE_EXPORT'd API to get at that information
some other way.
- FChE
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.
