Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:27:19 -0800
From: Kees Cook <>
To: Igor Stoppa <>
Cc: Boris Lukashev <>, Christopher Lameter <>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <>, Jann Horn <>, 
	Jerome Glisse <>, Michal Hocko <>, 
	Laura Abbott <>, Christoph Hellwig <>, 
	linux-security-module <>, Linux-MM <>, 
	kernel list <>, 
	Kernel Hardening <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Protectable Memory

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Igor Stoppa <> wrote:
> 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 ...

I would agree: let's get basic functionality in first. Both
verification and the physmap part can be done separately, IMO.


Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.