From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Hoeun Ryu <hoeun.ryu@gmail.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-20 12:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-19 10:04 [RFC 1/7] arch: add __ro_mostly_after_init section marker Hoeun Ryu
2017-02-19 10:04 ` [RFC 2/7] init: add set_ro_mostly_after_init_rw/ro function Hoeun Ryu
2017-02-20 10:22 ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 6:33 ` Ho-Eun Ryu
2017-02-19 10:04 ` [RFC 3/7] module: modify memory attrs for __ro_mostly_after_init during module_init/exit Hoeun Ryu
2017-02-20 10:30 ` [kernel-hardening] " Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 13:36 ` Ho-Eun Ryu
2017-02-21 13:58 ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-22 13:45 ` Hoeun Ryu
2017-02-19 10:04 ` [RFC 4/7] selinux: mark __ro_mostly_after_init for selinux_hooks/selinux_nf_ops Hoeun Ryu
2017-02-21 10:35 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-02-19 10:04 ` [RFC 5/7] cpu: mark ro_mostly_after_init for cpuhp_ap/bp_states Hoeun Ryu
2017-02-20 8:20 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-02-21 5:47 ` Ho-Eun Ryu
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
2017-02-19 11:24 ` [kernel-hardening] [RFC 1/7] arch: add __ro_mostly_after_init section marker Ard Biesheuvel
2017-02-21 6:29 ` Ho-Eun Ryu
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=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=hoeun.ryu@gmail.com \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=labbott@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.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