Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:10:13 -0800 From: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Boris Lukashev <blukashev@...pervictus.com>, Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, 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 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 wrong. I think your other summaries are good points though and should go in the cover letter. Thanks, Laura
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.