On 02/12/2018 03:27 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.sto...@huawei.com> wrote:
On 04/02/18 00:29, Boris Lukashev wrote:
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Igor Stoppa <igor.sto...@huawei.com> 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.

Skipping over physmap leaves a pretty big area of exposure that could
be difficult to solve later. I appreciate this might block basic
functionality but I don't think we should just gloss over it without
at least some idea of what we would do.

Thanks,
Laura

Reply via email to