[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712071814200.1835@nanos>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:23:39 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 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, 7 Dec 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 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.
Where is the problem? You can map it RO into user space with the USER bit
cleared. The kernel knows how to access the real stuff.
> 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.
The approach I've taken is to create a VMA and map it into user space with
the USER bit cleared. A little bit more effort code wise, but that avoids
all the page table muck and keeps it straight attached to the process.
Will post once in a bit.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists