Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 17:05:25 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <>
To: Boris Lukashev <>
CC: Christopher Lameter <>, Matthew Wilcox <>,
	Jann Horn <>, Jerome Glisse <>, Kees Cook
	<>, Michal Hocko <>, Laura Abbott
	<>, Christoph Hellwig <>,
	linux-security-module <>, Linux-MM
	<>, kernel list <>, "Kernel
 Hardening" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Protectable Memory

On 04/02/18 00:29, Boris Lukashev wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Igor Stoppa <> wrote:


>> 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 ...


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.