public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC 7/7] arm64: map seperately rodata sections for __ro_mostly_after_init section
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:45:32 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170220124531.GH9003@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9umycZm_UP99ZUifLUBb8MuOZHXgU9nB6XioVMa4eeVw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:35:51AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 19 February 2017 at 10:04, Hoeun Ryu <hoeun.ryu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Map rodata sections seperately for the new __ro_mostly_after_init section.
> > Attribute of memory for __ro_mostly_after_init section can be changed later
> > so we need a dedicated vmalloced region for set_memory_rw/ro api.

> While it is correct that you are splitting this into three separate
> segments (otherwise we would not be able to change the permissions
> later without risking splitting to occur), I think this leads to
> unnecessary fragmentation.
> 
> If there is demand for this feature (but you still need to make the
> argument for that), I wonder if it wouldn't be sufficient, and much
> more straightforward, to redefine the __ro_after_init semantics to
> include the kind of subsystem registration and module init context you
> are targeting, and implement some hooks to temporarily lift the
> __ro_after_init r/o permission restrictions in a controlled manner.

>From a look over the series, I think this is just __write_rarely in
disguise. I personally think that we should keep __write_rarely and
__ro_after_init separate, the later being a strictly one-shot affair.

I had some ideas [1] as to how we could implement __write_rarely without
carving up the kernel mapping further (and keeping the RW permissions
local to the thread needing it), but I have not had the time to look
into that further.

Thanks,
Mark.

[1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2016/11/18/3

  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-20 12:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1487498660-16600-1-git-send-email-hoeun.ryu@gmail.com>
2017-02-19 10:04 ` [RFC 6/7] arm64: add __map_kernel_segment to accept additional vm flags Hoeun Ryu
2017-02-19 11:21   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-02-19 10:04 ` [RFC 7/7] arm64: map seperately rodata sections for __ro_mostly_after_init section Hoeun Ryu
2017-02-19 11:35   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-02-20 12:45     ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2017-02-21 20:38       ` 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=20170220124531.GH9003@leverpostej \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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