linux-hardening - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] x86_64: Harden compressed kernel, part 1

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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.