From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 0/2] introduce post-init read-only memory Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 09:08:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20151129080853.GB23721@gmail.com> References: <1448401114-24650-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> <5656F7A2.738.131F89C0@pageexec.freemail.hu> <20151127080554.GB24991@gmail.com> <565876F3.21515.18F8DF8F@pageexec.freemail.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <565876F3.21515.18F8DF8F@pageexec.freemail.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: PaX Team Cc: Linus Torvalds , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Mathias Krause , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Kees Cook , Andy Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86-ml , Arnd Bergmann , Michael Ellerman , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Emese Revfy List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org * PaX Team wrote: > i don't see the compile time vs. runtime detection as 'competing' approaches, > both have their own role. [...] That's true - but only as long as 'this can be solved in tooling!' is not used as an excuse to oppose the runtime solution and we end up doing neither. Thanks, Ingo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:35643 "EHLO mail-wm0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751193AbbK2II5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2015 03:08:57 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 09:08:53 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 0/2] introduce post-init read-only memory Message-ID: <20151129080853.GB23721@gmail.com> References: <1448401114-24650-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> <5656F7A2.738.131F89C0@pageexec.freemail.hu> <20151127080554.GB24991@gmail.com> <565876F3.21515.18F8DF8F@pageexec.freemail.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <565876F3.21515.18F8DF8F@pageexec.freemail.hu> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: PaX Team Cc: Linus Torvalds , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Mathias Krause , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Kees Cook , Andy Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86-ml , Arnd Bergmann , Michael Ellerman , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Emese Revfy Message-ID: <20151129080853.pSG0QboPHoOedNdXAcd4kkdULjV64ljbTjV_2GryMuM@z> * PaX Team wrote: > i don't see the compile time vs. runtime detection as 'competing' approaches, > both have their own role. [...] That's true - but only as long as 'this can be solved in tooling!' is not used as an excuse to oppose the runtime solution and we end up doing neither. Thanks, Ingo