[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1904261006290.10464@gjva.wvxbf.pm>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 10:07:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Jonathan Adams <jwadams@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] x86: introduce system calls addess space
isolation
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> The benefit seems to come from making sure that the RET instruction
> actually goes somewhere that's already been faulted in.
Which doesn't seem to be really compatible with things like retpolines or
anyone using FTRACE_WITH_REGS to modify stored instruction pointer.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists