[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090629195410.GE31577@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:54:10 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Siarhei Liakh <sliakh.lkml@...il.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RO/NX protection for loadable kernel modules
* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:16:40 -0400
> Siarhei Liakh <sliakh.lkml@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > This patch is a logical extension of the protection provided by
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA to LKMs. The protection is provided by splitting
> > module_core and module_init into three logical parts each and setting
> > appropriate page access permissions for each individual section:
> >
> > 1. Code: RO+X
> > 2. RO data: RO+NX
> > 3. RW data: RW+NX
> >
> > In order to achieve proper protection, layout_sections() have been
> > modified to align each of the three parts mentioned above onto page
> > boundary. Next, the corresponding page access permissions are set
> > right before successful exit from load_module(). Further,
> > module_free() have been modified to set module_core or module_init as
> > RW+NX right before calling vfree(). Functionality of this patch is
> > enabled only when CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA defined at compile time.
> >
> > This is the second revision of the patch: it have been re-written to
> > reduce the number of #ifdefs and to make it architecture-agnostic.
> > Code formatting have been corrected also.
> >
>
> you can still go one step further....
> there is no downside to doing NX at all for modules, except for the 3
> sections now each being page aligned thing. So in principle NX should
> just not be part of any ifdef, only the alignment has any justification
> for being so.
> What you can do in the !CONFIG_OPTION case, is treating the "overlap"
> pages as "most permissive goes"..... if you do that you should have 1
> ifdef in total.
>
> (and one can still argue that making this an option is not even
> worth that, and just always do it unconditional)
agreed.
Ingo
--
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