[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <34381CFC-A90F-4979-9802-2BA0E6539C68@amazon.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 16:03:34 +0000
From: "Saidi, Ali" <alisaidi@...zon.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
CC: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mmap: handle worst-case heap randomization in
mmap_base
On 3/27/19, 2:52 PM, "linux-arm-kernel on behalf of Kees Cook" <linux-arm-kernel-bounces@...ts.infradead.org on behalf of keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
Adding some more people to CC... what do people think about this
moving of the brk to ELF_ET_DYN_BASE in this corner-case? Anything
that worked before should still work (i.e. the ultimately-launched
binary already had the brk very far from its text, so this should be
no different from a COMPAT_BRK standpoint). The only risk I see here
is that if someone started to suddenly depend on the entire memory
space above the mmap region being available when launching binaries
via a direct loader execs... which seems highly unlikely, I'd hope:
this would mean a binary would not work when execed normally.
Kees' proposal addresses the issue for me. Anyone have concerns on this proposed solution?
Ali
Powered by blists - more mailing lists