linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] x86, boot: kaslr cleanup and 64bit kaslr support

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160415065559.GA30715@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:55:59 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, lasse.collin@...aani.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] x86, boot: kaslr cleanup and 64bit kaslr support


* Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> wrote:

> >> I will split these chunks up into the correct patches and resend the series. 
> >> If you get a chance, can you double-check this?
> >
> > Yes, these changes sounds great. I checked the series you posted, and have to 
> > say you make them look much better. The change logs are perfect and great code 
> > refactoring. Just one little bit thing, here:
> >
> > [kees: rewrote changelog, refactored goto into while, limit 32-bit to 1G] in 
> > patch [PATCH v5 19/21] x86, KASLR: Add physical address randomization >4G
> >
> > In i386 KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE is kept to be 0x20000000, namely 512M, w/o kaslr 
> > enabled. So here I guess it's a typo, should be "limit 32-bit to 1G". And what 
> > I said is wrong about upper limit yesterday, in fact i386 can put kernel in 
> > [16M, 896M), not 768M. But KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE is good enough for i386 for now.
> 
> Ah yeah, thanks. If we do a v6, I'll update the typo. I was going to say "limit 
> 32-bit to KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE" but it was going to line-wrap.
> :P

No need to resend, I've fixed the changelog.

Thanks,

	Ingo