linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] x86/alternative: 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]

Message-ID: <5CE7C382-F25F-49B3-A2A5-4E3EA0A221DF@vmware.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 01:06:36 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Damian Tometzki <linux_dti@...oud.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] x86/alternative: text_poke() enhancements

> On Dec 6, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 05:33:54PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Which leads me to (b) - the patch-set is big "enough" IMHO. Indeed,
>> there are open security issues in the kernel when it comes to W^X.  But
>> some people would want to use Andy's temporary mm-struct for other uses.
>> So additional security hardening may be left for future patches.
> 
> Yes, at the very least we should get the first 7 patches merged, since
> they work and clean up the text poking irrespective of all that W^X
> munging.
> 
> (also, I think you lost my ACK)

Sorry for that. I will add.

But first, Thomas, Andy, are you ok with going with the first 7 patches?

IIRC, you are the one who asked to add the handling of modules, since it was
not clear whether some synchronization is needed after the poking (that is
done w/memcpy in this early stage).

I can add synchronization if needed until the rest of the series gets in.