[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44EB3BF0.3040805@vmware.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:16:32 -0700
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h
Andi Kleen wrote:
> I don't see why paravirt ops is that much more sensitive
> than most other kernel code.
>
>
>> It would be a lot safer if we could have the struct paravirt_ops in
>> protected read-only const memory space, set it up in the core kernel
>> early on in boot when we play "guess todays hypervisor" and then make
>> sure it stays in read only (even to kernel) space.
>>
>
> By default we don't make anything read only because that would
> mess up the 2MB kernel mapping.
>
> In general i don't think making select code in the kernel
> read only is a good idea, because as long as you don't
> protect everything including stacks etc. there will be always
> attack points where supposedly protected code relies
> on unprotected state. If someone can write to kernel
> memory you already lost.
>
> And it adds TLB pressure.
>
And it doesn't work for VMI or lhype, both of which might modify
paravirt_ops way later in the boot process, when loaded as a module.
Where did this conversation come from? I don't see it on any list I'm
subscribed to.
Zach
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists