Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:43:49 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>, Boris Lukashev <blukashev@...pervictus.com>, Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 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 Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> wrote: > No, arm64 doesn't fixup the aliases, mostly because arm64 uses larger > page sizes which can't be broken down at runtime. CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING > does use 4K pages which could be adjusted at runtime. So yes, you are > right we would have physmap exposure on arm64 as well. Errr, so that means even modules and kernel code are writable via the arm64 physmap? That seems extraordinarily bad. :( -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
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.