[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:08:00 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>, Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] powerpc: Reduce ELF_ET_DYN_BASE
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
>
>> Now that explicitly executed loaders are loaded in the mmap region,
>> position PIE binaries lower in the address space to avoid possible
>> collisions with mmap or stack regions. For 64-bit, align to 4GB to
>> allow runtimes to use the entire 32-bit address space for 32-bit
>> pointers.
>
> The change log and subject are a bit out of whack with the actual patch
> because previously we used 512MB.
>
> How about?
>
> powerpc: Move ELF_ET_DYN_BASE to 4GB / 4MB
>
> Now that explicitly executed loaders are loaded in the mmap region,
> we have more freedom to decide where we position PIE binaries in the
> address space to avoid possible collisions with mmap or stack regions.
>
> For 64-bit, align to 4GB to allow runtimes to use the entire 32-bit
> address space for 32-bit pointers. On 32-bit use 4MB.
Good idea, thanks. I'll resend the series with the commit logs updated.
> Is there any particular reasoning behind the 4MB value on 32-bit?
So, I've dug around a bit on this, and I *think* the rationale is to
avoid mapping a possible 4MB page table entry when it won't be using
at least a portion near the lower end (NULL address area covered
blocked by mmap_min_addr). It seems to be mainly tradition, though.
> I gave this a quick spin and it booted OK on all my test boxes, which
> covers 64-bit/32-bit kernel and userspace. So seems to work!
Awesome, thanks for the testing!
> Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
>
> cheers
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel 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.
