[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:31:52 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
CC: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, "Kernel
Hardening" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, linux-integrity
<linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, LSM List
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Hansen
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Laura Abbott
<labbott@...hat.com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Mike Rapoport
<rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "open list:DOCUMENTATION"
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Thomas
Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] prmem: documentation
On 13/11/2018 19:47, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> For general rare-writish stuff, I don't think we want IRQs running
> with them mapped anywhere for write. For AVC and IMA, I'm less sure.
Why would these be less sensitive?
But I see a big difference between my initial implementation and this one.
In my case, by using a shared mapping, visible to all cores, freezing
the core that is performing the write would have exposed the writable
mapping to a potential attack run from another core.
If the mapping is private to the core performing the write, even if it
is frozen, it's much harder to figure out what it had mapped and where,
from another core.
To access that mapping, the attack should be performed from the ISR, I
think.
--
igor
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.
