On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017, Kees Cook wrote: > >> If we also added a >0 offset, that would make things even less >> deterministic. Though I wonder if it would make the performance impact >> higher. The XOR patch right now is very light. > > There would be barely any performance impact if you keep the offset within > a cacheline since most objects start on a cacheline boundary. The > processor has to fetch the cacheline anyways. Sure, this seems like a nice additional bit of hardening, even if we're limited to a cacheline. I'd still want to protect the spray and index attacks though (which the XOR method covers), but we can do both. We should keep them distinct patches, though. If you'll Ack the XOR patch, I can poke at adding offset randomization? -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
