From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/x86: AMD Bulldozer ASLR fix
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:59:50 +0200
Message-ID: <20150331075949.GA11795@gmail.com>
References: <20150326190800.GF27751@pd.tnic>
 <1427456301-3764-1-git-send-email-hecmargi@upv.es>
 <20150327144438.GA3254@pd.tnic>
 <20150329085122.GA25177@gmail.com>
 <20150329095334.GA4973@pd.tnic>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Hector Marco-Gisbert <hecmargi@upv.es>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jan-Simon <dl9pf@gmx.de>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Ismael Ripoll <iripoll@disca.upv.es>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150329095334.GA4973@pd.tnic>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org


* Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:51:22AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > s/reduces the mmapped file's entropy by 3 bits
> > 
> > Which does:
> > 
> >  - a grammar fix
> > 
> >  - measure it in bits, as later on we are talking about randomness in 
> >    bits as well.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> > Btw., does this limitation affect both executable and non-executable
> > mmap()s?
> 
> Only executable mappings.
> 
> > Because data mmap()s don't need this I$ related workaround, right? So
> > we could relax it for data-mmap()s?
> 
> Well, AFAIR, we wanted to keep this as less intrusive as possble. If
> we're going to relax this, one way to solve it would be to pass down
> @prot from do_mmap_pgoff() and friends to get_unmapped_area() which
> would need to touch other arches.
> 
> I'm not sure it is worth it...

Well, we could define arch_get_unmapped_area_exec(), and if an arch 
defines it, the mm code would call into it.

But yeah, it would add a function pointer to mm_struct, which I'm not 
sure is worth it.

Thanks,

	Ingo