linux-kernel - Re: JIT emulator needs

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 linux-cve-announce 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:	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:43:41 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: JIT emulator needs

On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 01:56 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On 6/21/07, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 02:35 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > > Right now, Linux isn't all that friendly to JIT emulators.
> > > Here are the problems and suggestions to improve the situation.
> > >
> > > There is an SE Linux execmem restriction that enforces W^X.
> > > Assuming you don't wish to just disable SE Linux, there are
> > > two ugly ways around the problem. You can mmap a file twice,
> > > or you can abuse SysV shared memory. The mmap method requires
> > > that you know of a filesystem mounted rw,exec where you can
> > > write a very large temporary file. This arbitrary filesystem,
> > > rather than swap space, will be the backing store. The SysV
> > > shared memory method requires an undocumented flag and is
> > > subject to some annoying size limits. Both methods create
> > > objects that will fail to be deleted if the program dies
> > > before marking the objects for deletion.
> >
> > and these methods also destroy yourself on any machine with a looser
> > cache coherency between I and D-cache....
> >
> > for all but x86 you pretty much have to do the mprotect() between the
> > two states to deal with the cache flushing properly...
> 
> If the instructions to force data write-back and/or to
> invalidate the instruction cache are priveleged, yes.
> AFAIK, only ARM is that lame.

and your program executes this on all the cpus in the system?

-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

-
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/