Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:13:28 -0700 From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, 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>, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: arm64 physmap (was Re: [PATCH 4/6] Protectable Memory) On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:48:38AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> wrote: > > fixed. Modules yes are not fully protected. The conclusion from past > > experience has been that we cannot safely break down larger page sizes > > at runtime like x86 does. We could theoretically > > add support for fixing up the alias if PAGE_POISONING is enabled but > > I don't know who would actually use that in production. Performance > > is very poor at that point. > > XPFO forces 4K pages on the physmap for similar reasons. I have no > doubt about performance changes, but I'd be curious to see real > numbers. Did anyone do benchmarks on just the huge/4K change? (Without > also the XPFO overhead?) > > If this, XPFO, and PAGE_POISONING all need it, I think we have to > start a closer investigation. :) I haven't but it shouldn't be too hard. What benchmarks are you thinking? Tycho
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.