On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >>>> It's worth having a discussion about whether we want the pmalloc API >>>> or whether we want a slab-based API. > I'd love to have some feedback specifically about the API. > > I have also some idea about userspace and how to extend the pmalloc > concept to it: > > http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/01/30/20 > > I'll be AFK intermittently for about 2 weeks, so i might not be able to > reply immediately, but from my perspective this would be just the > beginning of a broader hardening of both kernel and userspace that I'd > like to pursue. > > -- > igor Regarding the notion of validated protected memory, is there a method by which the resulting checksum could be used in a lookup table/function to resolve the location of the protected data? Effectively a hash table of protected allocations, with a benefit of dedup since any data matching the same key would be the same data (multiple identical cred structs being pushed around). Should leave the resolver address/csum in recent memory to check against, right? -- Boris Lukashev Systems Architect Semper Victus -- 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>
