On 10/13/2014 08:19 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote: >>> >>> This really shouldn't have happened this way on x86-64. It has to happen >>> this way on i386, but I worry that this may be a serious misdesign in kaslr >>> on x86-64. I'm also wondering if there is any other fallout of this? >> >> I agree. On x86_64, we should stick to previous design and this new >> logic of performing relocations does not sound very clean and makes >> things very confusing. >> >> I am wondering that why couldn't we simply adjust page tables in case of >> kaslr on x86_64, instead of performing relocations. > > Well, IIUC, if virtual addresses are shifted w.r.t what virtual address > kernel was compiled for, then relocation will have to be done. > > So question will be if physical address shift is enough for kaslr or > virtual address shift is necessary. > I would assume that without a virtual address shift kaslr is pretty darn pointless. Without the physical address shift the 1:1 map can be used, and again, kaslr becomes pointless. However, there is absolutely no reason why they should be coupled. They can, in fact, be independently randomized. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html