From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.c
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] powerpc: Reduce ELF_ET_DYN_BASE
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 23:04:58 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8737amew79.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jK7aHHRMZyZyrviBF+cLghWcH_D4PX_vMFOycHuF7EdLA@mail.gmail.com>
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>> Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes:
>>
>>> Now that explicitly executed loaders are loaded in the mmap region,
>>> position PIE binaries lower in the address space to avoid possible
>>> collisions with mmap or stack regions. For 64-bit, align to 4GB to
>>> allow runtimes to use the entire 32-bit address space for 32-bit
>>> pointers.
>>
>> The change log and subject are a bit out of whack with the actual patch
>> because previously we used 512MB.
>>
>> How about?
>>
>> powerpc: Move ELF_ET_DYN_BASE to 4GB / 4MB
>>
>> Now that explicitly executed loaders are loaded in the mmap region,
>> we have more freedom to decide where we position PIE binaries in the
>> address space to avoid possible collisions with mmap or stack regions.
>>
>> For 64-bit, align to 4GB to allow runtimes to use the entire 32-bit
>> address space for 32-bit pointers. On 32-bit use 4MB.
>
> Good idea, thanks. I'll resend the series with the commit logs updated.
>
>> Is there any particular reasoning behind the 4MB value on 32-bit?
>
> So, I've dug around a bit on this, and I *think* the rationale is to
> avoid mapping a possible 4MB page table entry when it won't be using
> at least a portion near the lower end (NULL address area covered
> blocked by mmap_min_addr). It seems to be mainly tradition, though.
OK, that is obscure, especially for CPUs that don't have a 4MB page
size. But consistency across arches is probably best regardless.
cheers
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] powerpc: Reduce ELF_ET_DYN_BASE
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 23:04:58 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8737amew79.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
Message-ID: <20170626130458.pERhW3G532RIpPuNL-JzyguzkkxDOqFbla3q5_KbU1U@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jK7aHHRMZyZyrviBF+cLghWcH_D4PX_vMFOycHuF7EdLA@mail.gmail.com>
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>> Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes:
>>
>>> Now that explicitly executed loaders are loaded in the mmap region,
>>> position PIE binaries lower in the address space to avoid possible
>>> collisions with mmap or stack regions. For 64-bit, align to 4GB to
>>> allow runtimes to use the entire 32-bit address space for 32-bit
>>> pointers.
>>
>> The change log and subject are a bit out of whack with the actual patch
>> because previously we used 512MB.
>>
>> How about?
>>
>> powerpc: Move ELF_ET_DYN_BASE to 4GB / 4MB
>>
>> Now that explicitly executed loaders are loaded in the mmap region,
>> we have more freedom to decide where we position PIE binaries in the
>> address space to avoid possible collisions with mmap or stack regions.
>>
>> For 64-bit, align to 4GB to allow runtimes to use the entire 32-bit
>> address space for 32-bit pointers. On 32-bit use 4MB.
>
> Good idea, thanks. I'll resend the series with the commit logs updated.
>
>> Is there any particular reasoning behind the 4MB value on 32-bit?
>
> So, I've dug around a bit on this, and I *think* the rationale is to
> avoid mapping a possible 4MB page table entry when it won't be using
> at least a portion near the lower end (NULL address area covered
> blocked by mmap_min_addr). It seems to be mainly tradition, though.
OK, that is obscure, especially for CPUs that don't have a 4MB page
size. But consistency across arches is probably best regardless.
cheers
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-26 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-22 18:06 [PATCH 0/4] Reduce ELF_ET_DYN_BASE Kees Cook
2017-06-22 18:06 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm: " Kees Cook
2017-06-22 18:06 ` Kees Cook
2017-06-22 18:06 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: " Kees Cook
2017-06-23 6:57 ` [kernel-hardening] " Ard Biesheuvel
2017-06-23 6:57 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-06-23 13:52 ` Kees Cook
2017-06-23 13:52 ` Kees Cook
2017-06-23 14:02 ` Kees Cook
2017-06-23 14:02 ` Kees Cook
2017-06-23 15:04 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-06-23 15:04 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-06-22 18:06 ` [PATCH 3/4] powerpc: " Kees Cook
2017-06-22 18:06 ` Kees Cook
2017-06-23 7:01 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-06-23 7:01 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-06-23 20:08 ` Kees Cook
2017-06-23 20:08 ` Kees Cook
2017-06-26 13:04 ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
2017-06-26 13:04 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-06-26 18:26 ` Kees Cook
2017-06-26 18:26 ` Kees Cook
2017-06-22 18:06 ` [PATCH 4/4] s390: " Kees Cook
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8737amew79.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au \
--to=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.c \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=panand@redhat.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox