linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 00/27] Kernel Address Space Isolation

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907151026190.1669@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jul 2019 10:28:11 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        rkrcmar@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        konrad.wilk@...cle.com, jan.setjeeilers@...cle.com,
        liran.alon@...cle.com, jwadams@...gle.com, graf@...zon.de,
        rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/27] Kernel Address Space Isolation

Alexandre,

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
> On 7/12/19 9:48 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > As I said before, come up with a list of possible usage scenarios and
> > protection scopes first and please take all the ideas other people have
> > with this into account. This includes PTI of course.
> > 
> > Once we have that we need to figure out whether these things can actually
> > coexist and do not contradict each other at the semantical level and
> > whether the outcome justifies the resulting complexity.
> > 
> > After that we can talk about implementation details.
> 
> Right, that makes perfect sense. I think so far we have the following
> scenarios:
> 
>  - PTI
>  - KVM (i.e. VMExit handler isolation)
>  - maybe some syscall isolation?

Vs. the latter you want to talk to Paul Turner. He had some ideas there.

> I will look at them in more details, in particular what particular
> mappings they need and when they need to switch mappings.
> 
> And thanks for putting me back on the right track.

That's what maintainers are for :)

Thanks,

	tglx