[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVrQRUn6PoBBGSD8+-wRrWp3mQtKY1sYnCRFyDBte5usA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 09:08:34 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LDT improvements
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:22:21PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I think I like this approach. I also think it might be nice to move the
>> whole cpu_entry_area into this new pgd range so that we can stop mucking
>> around with the fixmap.
>
> Yeah, and also, I don't like the idea of sacrificing a whole PGD
> only for the LDT crap which is optional, even. Frankly - and this
> is just me - I'd make CONFIG_KERNEL_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION xor
> CONFIG_MODIFY_LDT_SYSCALL and don't give a rat's *ss about the LDT.
The PGD sacrifice doesn't bother me. Putting a writable LDT map at a
constant address does bother me. We could probably get away with RO
if we trapped and handled the nasty faults, but that could be very
problematic.
The version here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/pti&id=a74d1009ac72a1f04ec5bcd338a4bdbe170ab776
actually seems to work.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists