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:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 13:22:03 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Evgeniy Baskov <baskov@...ras.ru>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        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 Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 01:41:58PM +0300, Evgeniy Baskov wrote:
> On 2022-08-03 17:05, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> We have commercial closed-source UEFI firmware implementation at ISP RAS
> that follows the behavior of the secure_pe branch. That firmware is used
> as a part of [1].
> 
> [1] https://www.ispras.ru/en/technologies/asperitas/

Are there any plans on getting those changes merged back upstream to the
main UEFI codebase so that others can test this type of functionality
out?

thanks,

greg k-h