Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933559AbdDGWrh (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:47:37 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f51.google.com ([209.85.214.51]:34975 "EHLO mail-it0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751015AbdDGWr3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:47:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170407152319.f37c877c79c19cb52daf9ba1@linux-foundation.org> References: <20170406033550.32525-1-ewk@edkovsky.org> <20170407151249.b1d45218ad2f71bdc2c8f992@linux-foundation.org> <20170407152319.f37c877c79c19cb52daf9ba1@linux-foundation.org> From: Kees Cook Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:47:27 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vgrebWAk58TEzSdNO7x0m5GrUHs Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] provide check for ro_after_init memory sections To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jessica Yu , Rusty Russell , LKML , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" , Eddie Kovsky Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1759 Lines: 43 On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:15:36 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> > On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:53:23 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: >> > >> >> > Eddie Kovsky (2): >> >> > module: verify address is read-only >> >> > extable: verify address is read-only >> >> > >> >> > include/linux/kernel.h | 2 ++ >> >> > include/linux/module.h | 12 ++++++++++++ >> >> > kernel/extable.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> > kernel/module.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> > 4 files changed, 96 insertions(+) >> >> >> >> Andrew, do you have these in your mailbox (it went to lkml), or should >> >> I resend them directly to you? Since they depend on the >> >> __start_ro_after_init naming fixes in -mm, it seemed like it'd be best >> >> to carry these two patches there. If so, please consider them both: >> >> >> >> Acked-by: Kees Cook >> >> >> >> (And, from the thread on the module patch, Jessica has Acked that one too.) >> > >> > Well I grabbed them, but the patches don't actually do anything - they >> > add interfaces with no users. What's the plan here? >> >> I'd like to have a way for interfaces (especially the various >> *_register()) to be able to check that a structure is either const or >> __ro_after_init. My expectation is to add those and similar >> sanity-checks now that we can do so. > > OK. But I'd rather sit on the patches until we have working, tested, > reviewed callers which are agreed to be useful. That sounds fine to me. Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security