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: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 07:05:00 -0700 From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> To: Evgeniy Baskov <baskov@...ras.ru> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] x86_64: Harden compressed kernel, part 1 On 8/2/22 16:45, Evgeniy Baskov wrote: > Partially. We do have known issues because kernel PE image is not > compliant with the MS PE and COFF specification v8.3 referenced by > the UEFI specification. UEFI implementations with stricter PE loaders > (e.g. mentioned above) fail to boot Linux kernel. That shows me that it's _possible_ to build a more strict PE loader that wouldn't load Linux. But, in practice is anyone using a more strict PE loader? Does anyone actually want that in practice? Or, again, is this more strict PE loader just an academic demonstration? The README starts: This branch demonstrates... That doesn't seem like something that's _important_ to deal with. Sounds like a proof-of-concept. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving thing, even if the benefits are far off. But, let's not fool ourselves.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists