lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 08:31:35 -0700 From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/21] KCFI support On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 9:08 AM Kenton Groombridge <me@...cord.sh> wrote: > Many thanks for continuing to work on this! As a user who has been > following the evolution of this patch series for a while now, I have a > couple of burning questions: > > 1) The LLVM patch says that kCFI is not compatible with execute-only > memory. Is there a plan ahead for kCFI if and when execute-only memory > is implemented? There's no plan for executable-only memory right now, that would require type hashes to be moved somewhere else to read-only memory. > 2) kCFI only checks indirect calls while Clang's traditional CFI has > more schemes like bad cast checking and so on. Are there any major > security tradeoffs as a result of this? No, cfi-icall is only scheme that's relevant for the kernel. The other schemes implemented in Clang are mostly useful for C++. Sami
Powered by blists - more mailing lists