[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <09c1c94fb9c5006199d88caa88f237a3@ispras.ru>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 13:41:58 +0300
From: Evgeniy Baskov <baskov@...ras.ru>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] x86_64: Harden compressed kernel, part 1
On 2022-08-03 17:05, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> That shows me that it's _possible_ to build a more strict PE loader
> that
> wouldn't load Linux. But, in practice is anyone using a more strict PE
> loader? Does anyone actually want that in practice? Or, again, is
> this
> more strict PE loader just an academic demonstration?
>
> The README starts:
>
> This branch demonstrates...
>
> That doesn't seem like something that's _important_ to deal with.
> Sounds like a proof-of-concept.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving thing, even if the benefits
> are far off. But, let's not fool ourselves.
We have commercial closed-source UEFI firmware implementation at ISP RAS
that follows the behavior of the secure_pe branch. That firmware is used
as a part of [1].
[1] https://www.ispras.ru/en/technologies/asperitas/
Thanks,
Evgeniy Baskov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists