On 10/01/2015 01:39 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: >> * Dave Hansen <d...@sr71.net> wrote: >>>> If yes then this could be a significant security feature / usecase for >>>> pkeys: > > Which CPUs (will) have pkeys?
It hasn't been announced publicly, so all I can say here is "future ones". >>>> executable sections of shared libraries and binaries could be mapped with >>>> pkey >>>> access disabled. If I read the Intel documentation correctly then that >>>> should >>>> be possible. >>> >>> Agreed. I've even heard from some researchers who are interested in this: >>> >>> https://www.infsec.cs.uni-saarland.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/10/nuernberger2014ccs_disclosure.pdf >> >> So could we try to add an (opt-in) kernel option that enables this >> transparently >> and automatically for all PROT_EXEC && !PROT_WRITE mappings, without any >> user-space changes and syscalls necessary? > > I would like this very much. :) I'll go hack something together and see what breaks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
