Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 0/2] introduce post-init read-only memory

[Ingo Molnar]

* PaX Team <pageexec@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 29 Nov 2015 at 9:08, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * PaX Team <pageexec@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > i don't see the compile time vs. runtime detection as 'competing' approaches, 
> > > both have their own role. [...]
> > 
> > That's true - but only as long as 'this can be solved in tooling!' is not used as 
> > an excuse to oppose the runtime solution and we end up doing neither.
> 
> actually, i already voiced my opinion elsewhere in the constify thread on the 
> kernel hardening list that adding/using __read_only is somewhat premature 
> without also adding the compile time verification part (as part of the constify 
> plugin for example). right now its use on the embedded vdso image is simple and 
> easy to verify but once people begin to add it to variables that the compiler 
> knows and cares about (say, the ops structures) then things can become fragile 
> without compile checking. so yes, i'd also advise to get such tooling in 
> *before* more __read_only usage is added.

I think you are mistaken there: if we add the page fault fixup to make sure we 
don't crash if a read-only variable is accessed, then we'll have most of the 
benefits of read-only mappings and no fragility - without having to wait for 
tooling.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/