[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151021132430.GD3575@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:24:31 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm: warn on W+x mappings
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 02:57:47PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> ... For the remaining cases, which is the vast majority, no such
> assumptions can be made, and since the UEFI runtime regions are
> typically populated with a bunch of PE/COFF images (each of which
> consists of text + data), inferring where the boundaries are between
> them does not seem tractable (for instance, to only map 'boundary'
> pages RWX)
How much of a problem would it be if we still do the on-demand page
faulting and map a trailing piece of code together with the data in a
page RWX?
Still better than mapping the *whole* thing RWX, 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