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 <>
To:     Evgeniy Baskov <>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,,,
        Alexey Khoroshilov <>,
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