[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <803a5202-6240-b062-b1d9-2aed0e11ebad@hisilicon.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:27:34 +0800
From: Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
CC: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Yuqi Jin <jinyuqi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] fs: Move @f_count to different cacheline with
@f_mode
Hi Aleksa,
在 2020/8/26 16:24, Aleksa Sarai 写道:
> On 2020-08-26, Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com> wrote:
>> 在 2020/8/22 0:02, Will Deacon 写道:
>>> - This thing is tagged with __randomize_layout, so it doesn't help anybody
>>> using that crazy plugin
>>
>> This patch isolated the @f_count with @f_mode absolutely and we don't care the
>> base address of the structure, or I may miss something what you said.
>
> __randomize_layout randomises the order of fields in a structure on each
> kernel rebuild (to make attacks against sensitive kernel structures
> theoretically harder because the offset of a field is per-build). It is
My bad, I missed Will's comments for my poor understanding on it.
> separate to ASLR or other base-related randomisation. However it depends
> on having CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT=y and I believe (at least for
> distribution kernels) this isn't a widely-used configuration.
Thanks for more explanations about it, in our test, this config is also
disabled. If having CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT=y, it seems this patch
will lose its value.
If it isn't widely-used for this config, hopefully we can do something on
the scene.
Thanks,
Shaokun
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists