linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] /proc/kcore: Update physical address for kcore ram and text

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

Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:50:50 +0530
From:   Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        Dave Anderson <anderson@...hat.com>,
        Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Atsushi Kumagai <ats-kumagai@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] /proc/kcore: Update physical address for kcore ram and
 text

Hi Andrew/Kees,

On Tuesday 14 February 2017 07:16 AM, Pratyush Anand wrote:
>>
>> Well, CONFIG_PROC_KCORE is a generalized root KASLR exposure (though
>> there are lots of such exposures). Why is the actual physical address
>> needed? Can this just report the virtual address instead? Then the
>> tool can build a map, but it looks like an identity map, rather than
>> creating a new physical/virtual memory ASLR offset exposure?
>
> Well, having an ASLR offset information can help to translate an
> identity mapped virtual address to a physical address. But that would be
> an additional field in PT_LOAD header structure and an arch dependent
> value.
>
> Moreover, sending a valid physical address like 0 does not seem right.
> So, IMHO it is better to fix that and send valid physical address when
> available (identity mapped).
>
> Thanks for the review.

So, whats the decision on this patch? I see that patch is lying in 
next/master. Should I expect this patch in v4.11-rc1?

Couple of user-space makedumpfile modification will depend on this 
patch. So, we can not get those makedumpfile patches merged until this 
patch hits upstream.

~Pratyush