From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Josh Armour <jarmour@google.com>,
"ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] security-related TODO items?
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:53:18 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrW9oP7=77X1tN2OQhtiamyR94yT_=00ZxgbuGvzHK--9A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFhKne8+cuH6vsu1JqRt5i=yMGH1Qv_RLJf07vQhkxUU-ajS1Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why put it in the user address space? As I said earlier in this thread, we
> want the facility to run code from kernel addresses in user mode, limited to
> only being able to access its own stack and the user addresses. Of course it
> should also be able to make syscalls, like mmap.
Would you believe I've already started prototyping this (the
kernel-code-in-user-mode part, not the execve part)?
As a practical matter, though, I think the implementation would be
*much* simpler if code running in user mode sees user addresses.
Otherwise we'd end up with very messy and constrained code on
single-address-space arches like x86 and we might not be able to
implement it at all on split-address-space arches like s390.
That being said, writing a bit of PIC code that parses the ELF file,
finds some unused address space, and relocates itself out of the way
shouldn't be *that* hard.
--Andy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-23 21:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-20 22:38 Kees Cook
2017-01-21 0:14 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-01-21 0:26 ` Kees Cook
2017-01-21 1:10 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-01-21 1:47 ` Josh Triplett
2017-01-23 10:02 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2017-01-23 10:48 ` David Howells
2017-01-23 20:10 ` Andy Lutomirski
[not found] ` <c1822e5b-9352-c1ab-ee98-e492ef6e156a@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
2017-01-24 20:58 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-01-23 20:36 ` David Howells
2017-01-23 20:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-01-23 21:53 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2017-01-23 23:26 ` Greg Ungerer
2017-01-23 20:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-01-24 2:38 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-01-24 10:03 ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-01-24 21:00 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-01-24 21:55 ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-01-24 10:38 ` Alexey Dobriyan
[not found] ` <CAEiveUcTQK84qFNpYoET-cpSXJe0KYtnYQtp0uTPz=z0tc3W9A@mail.gmail.com>
2017-03-07 16:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-02-02 21:12 ` David Howells
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='CALCETrW9oP7=77X1tN2OQhtiamyR94yT_=00ZxgbuGvzHK--9A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jarmour@google.com \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=willy6545@gmail.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