# \[kernel-hardening\] \[PATCH 4/6\] Protectable Memory

- From: Igor Stoppa \<hidden\>
- Date: 2018-02-04 15:05:25 
- List: linux-security-module
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-security-module/2018/02/5197637
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-security-module/2018/01/5184248/t.md

```text
On 04/02/18 00:29, Boris Lukashev wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Igor Stoppa [ref] 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
```