[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150216115517.GB9500@pd.tnic>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:55:17 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86, kaslr: propagate base load address calculation
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:25:26PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> No, no; I agree: a malicious boot loader is a lost cause. I mean
> mostly from a misbehavior perspective. Like, someone sees "kaslr" in
> the setup args and thinks they can set it to 1 and boot a kernel, etc.
> Or they set it to 0, but they lack HIBERNATION and "1" gets appended,
> but the setup_data parser sees the boot-loader one set to 0, etc. I'm
> just curious if we should avoid getting some poor system into a
> confusing state.
Well, we can apply the rule of the last setting sticks and since the
kernel is always going to be adding the last setup_data element of
type SETUP_KASLR (the boot loader ones will be somewhere on the list
in-between and we add to the end), we're fine, no?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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