Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 07:03:37 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> Cc: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: introduce post-init read-only memory On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 16:44 -0800, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote: >> > On Nov 24, 2015 1:38 PM, "Kees Cook" <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > One of the easiest ways to protect the kernel from attack is to reduce >> > > the internal attack surface exposed when a "write" flaw is available. By >> > > making as much of the kernel read-only as possible, we reduce the >> > > attack surface. >> > > >> > > Many things are written to only during __init, and never changed >> > > again. These cannot be made "const" since the compiler will do the wrong >> > > thing (we do actually need to write to them). Instead, move these items >> > > into a memory region that will be made read-only during mark_rodata_ro() >> > > which happens after all kernel __init code has finished. >> > > >> > > This introduces __read_only as a way to mark such memory, and adds some >> > > documentation about the existing __read_mostly marking. >> > >> > Obligatory bikeshed: __ro_after_init, please. It's barely longer, >> > and it directly explains what's going on. __read_only makes me think >> > that it's really read-only and could, for example, actually be in ROM. >> >> I'm fine with that. Anyone else want to chime in before I send a v2? > > I'm not clear on why this is x86 only? I was initially looking at how __read_mostly got implemented, and it seemed like section names were done on a per-arch basis. But it doesn't seem like that needs to be true. > It looks like it would work on any arch, or is there some toolchain > requirement? Given that the other sections are in the common linux.lds.h file, it seems unlikely to me. I'll try it in an arch-agnostic way and see what happens. :) -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS & Brillo Security
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.