Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:10:13 -0800
From: Laura Abbott <>
To: Igor Stoppa <>, Kees Cook <>
Cc: Boris Lukashev <>,
 Christopher Lameter <>, Matthew Wilcox <>,
 Jann Horn <>, Jerome Glisse <>,
 Michal Hocko <>, Christoph Hellwig <>,
 linux-security-module <>,
 Linux-MM <>, kernel list <>,
 Kernel Hardening <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Protectable Memory

On 02/13/2018 07:20 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> Why alterations of page properties are not considered a risk and the physmap is?
> And how would it be easier (i suppose) to attack the latter?

Alterations are certainly a risk but with the physmap the
mapping is already there. Find the address and you have
access vs. needing to actually modify the properties
then do the access. I could also be complete off base
on my threat model here so please correct me if I'm

I think your other summaries are good points though
and should go in the cover letter.


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.