Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:39:02 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com> Cc: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>, Ahmed Soliman <ahmedsoliman@...a.vt.edu>, linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/12] hardening: statically allocated protected memory On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:09 PM Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com> wrote: > wr_assign() does just that. > > However, reading again your previous mails, I realize that I might have > misinterpreted what you were suggesting. > > If the advice is to have also a default memset_user() which relies on > put_user(), but do not activate the feature by default for every > architecture, I definitely agree that it would be good to have it. > I just didn't think about it before. Yeah, I just mean you could have an arch-agnostic memset_user() implementation. > But I now realize that most likely you were just suggesting to have > full, albeit inefficient default support and then let various archs > review/enhance it. I can certainly do this. Right. > Regarding testing I have a question: how much can/should I lean on qemu? > In most cases the MMU might not need to be fully emulated, so I wonder > how well qemu-based testing can ensure that real life scenarios will work. I think qemu lets you know if it works (kvm is using the real MMU), and baremetal will give you more stable performance numbers. -- Kees Cook
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.