| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20121010091829.GA2131@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:18:29 +0100 From: Dave Martin <dave.martin@...aro.org> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com> Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Use AT() in the linker script to create correct program headers On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:37:06AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:24:13AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > Partly this came from some side speculation about whether we could do > > things like privileged read-only permissions on newer CPUs, for preventing > > unintended or undesired writes to the kernel's code or read-only data. > > Some other arches page protect the kernel, but that tends to be at > odds with the desire to use huge pages for the kernel mapping, and > independent of the load headers.. This wasn't so much about that headers themselves as about fragmentation of the page permissions which makes it difficult to map everything using huge pages / sections. But as you say, there are conflicting concerns here, and it seems not to be a priority. Privileged write-protect is nice to have if non-disruptive, but not essential. Cheers ---Dave -- 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