[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 15:46:50 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...gle.com>,
Eric Northup <digitaleric@...gle.com>, Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...gle.com>, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] x86, kaslr: find minimum safe relocation position
On 10/03/2013 03:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> This is highly problematic. The standard protocol is to hoist the
>> initramfs as high as possible in memory, so this may really unacceptably
>> restrict the available range.
>
> Doesn't this depend on the boot loader's behavior?
It does, but the recommended (and *required* for compatibility with
older kernels) behavior is to hoist as high as possible.
>> It would be better to treat these the same as reserved regions in the
>> e820 map as far as the address space picking algorithm is concerned.
>
> Could this be considered a future optimization, or do you feel this is
> required even for this first patch series landing?
Yes, I consider it required because of the above.
-hpa
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.
