Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 17:05:25 +0200 From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> To: Boris Lukashev <blukashev@...pervictus.com> CC: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Kernel Hardening" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> 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 <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> 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 ... -- igor
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.