On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/02/18 00:29, Boris Lukashev wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > >>> What you are suggesting, if I have understood it correctly, is that, >>> when the pool is protected, the addresses already given out, will become >>> traps that get resolved through a lookup table that is built based on >>> the content of each allocation. >>> >>> That seems to generate a lot of overhead, not to mention the fact that >>> it might not play very well with the MMU. >> >> That is effectively what i'm suggesting - as a form of protection for >> consumers against direct reads of data which may have been corrupted >> by some irrelevant means. In the context of pmalloc, it would probably >> be a separate type of ro+verified pool > ok, that seems more like an extension though. > > ATM I am having problems gaining traction to get even the basic merged :-) > > I would consider this as a possibility for future work, unless it is > said that it's necessary for pmalloc to be accepted ... I would agree: let's get basic functionality in first. Both verification and the physmap part can be done separately, IMO. -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>
