linux-kernel - Re: RFC x86/boot/64: BOOT_PGT_SIZE definition for compressed kernel

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201027143102.ugco5dmixu66fjsc@box>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 17:31:02 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: RFC x86/boot/64: BOOT_PGT_SIZE definition for compressed kernel

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 09:16:17AM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> The #PF handler is already there now with the SEV-ES series, but I agree
> it would still complicate things. It's simpler to just increase
> BOOT_PGT_SIZE and make it unconditional (i.e. bump it to say 32 or 64
> even if !KASLR). It's @nobits anyway so it would not increase the size
> of the bzImage, just require a slightly larger memory allocation by the
> bootloader.

I guess it's fine. But I'm worried we leave the picture in the same
fragile state. We still rely on the magic number.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov