Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 13:11:27 -0700
From: Kees Cook <>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <>
Cc: Joe Lawrence <>,
	Evgenii Shatokhin <>,
	Kristen Carlson Accardi <>,
	Miroslav Benes <>,,,,,,,,,, Josh Poimboeuf <>,
	Jessica Yu <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] Function Granular KASLR

On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 03:38:37PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> 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.

Wouldn't /proc/kallsysms entries cover this? I must be missing

Kees Cook

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.