On 02/12/2018 03:27 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Igor Stoppa [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 04/02/18 00:29, Boris Lukashev wrote:
quoted
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Igor Stoppa [off-list ref] wrote:
[...]
quoted
quoted
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 ...
I would agree: let's get basic functionality in first. Both
verification and the physmap part can be done separately, IMO.
Skipping over physmap leaves a pretty big area of exposure that could
be difficult to solve later. I appreciate this might block basic
functionality but I don't think we should just gloss over it without
at least some idea of what we would do.
Thanks,
Laura
--
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