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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:45:32 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <>
Cc:     Hoeun Ryu <>, Kees Cook <>,,
        "" <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Laura Abbott <>,
        Kefeng Wang <>,
        Jeremy Linton <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC 7/7] arm64: map seperately rodata sections for
 __ro_mostly_after_init section

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:35:51AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 19 February 2017 at 10:04, Hoeun Ryu <> wrote:
> > Map rodata sections seperately for the new __ro_mostly_after_init section.
> > Attribute of memory for __ro_mostly_after_init section can be changed later
> > so we need a dedicated vmalloced region for set_memory_rw/ro api.

> While it is correct that you are splitting this into three separate
> segments (otherwise we would not be able to change the permissions
> later without risking splitting to occur), I think this leads to
> unnecessary fragmentation.
> If there is demand for this feature (but you still need to make the
> argument for that), I wonder if it wouldn't be sufficient, and much
> more straightforward, to redefine the __ro_after_init semantics to
> include the kind of subsystem registration and module init context you
> are targeting, and implement some hooks to temporarily lift the
> __ro_after_init r/o permission restrictions in a controlled manner.

>From a look over the series, I think this is just __write_rarely in
disguise. I personally think that we should keep __write_rarely and
__ro_after_init separate, the later being a strictly one-shot affair.

I had some ideas [1] as to how we could implement __write_rarely without
carving up the kernel mapping further (and keeping the RW permissions
local to the thread needing it), but I have not had the time to look
into that further.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists