Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 13:08:21 -0800 From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>, Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] x86/mm/KASLR: Remap GDTs at fixed location On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote: >>> On 1/5/2017 9:54 AM, Thomas Garnier wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> That's my goal too. I started by doing a RO remap and got couple >>>> problems with hibernation. I can try again for the next iteration or >>>> delay it for another patch. I also need to look at KVM GDT usage, I am >>>> not familiar with it yet. >>> >>> >>> don't we write to the GDT as part of the TLS segment stuff for glibc ? >>> >> >> Not sure which glibc feature it is. >> >> In this design, you can write to the GDT per-cpu variable that will >> remain read-write. You just need to make the remapping writeable when >> we load task registers (ltr) then the processor use the current GDT >> address. At least that the case I know, I might find more through >> testing. > > Hmm. I bet that if we preset the accessed bits in all the segments > then we don't need it to be writable in general. But your point about > set_thread_area (TLS) is well taken. However, I strongly suspect that > we could make set_thread_area unconditionally set the accessed bit and > no one would ever notice. Not sure I fully understood and I don't want to miss an important point. Do you mean making GDT (remapping and per-cpu) read-only and switch the writeable flag only when we write to the per-cpu entry? -- Thomas
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.