[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160613212515.GA1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:25:16 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@...esas.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: mm: fix location of _etext
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 01:23:29PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > The _etext position is defined to be the end of the kernel text code,
> > and should not include any part of the data segments. This interferes
> > with things that might check memory ranges and expect executable code
> > up to _etext.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>
> Can someone give this an Ack? I'd like to land it as it is a
> prerequisite to some usercopy hardening work I'm doing.
We use _etext to place the end of the "kernel code" resource in
/proc/iomem, and init_mm.end_code. I don't think anything makes
use of init_mm.end_code, but I'm more worried about the resource.
Currently, because of where _etext is placed, "kernel code" covers
the read-only data and other read-only sections as well - I don't
know whether we need to preserve that, but this change has a side
effect of changing that.
Maybe we also need a "kernel rodata" resource?
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists