[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070817141900.GA7223@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:19:00 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Hajime Inoue <hinoue@...l.carleton.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: System call interposition/unprotecting the table
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:48:35AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > In general the .data protection is only considered a debugging
> > > feature. I don't know why Fedora enables it in their production
> > > kernels.
> >
> > That would be because we think you are wrong 8)
>
> Well, it might at best buy you a few weeks/months in
> terms of the exploit arms race, but thrash your user's TLBs
> forever.
Show me a single situation where this matters.
When we first enabled, we tried both benchmarks and real-world
loads, and it didn't matter at all. Unless something fundamental
has changed since then, the story should still be the same.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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