DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B7BA3219A4
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712081835390.1840@nanos>
References: <48fe5cf1382d6a95c7b1837415882edcc81a9781.1512631324.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <20171207124347.p7kdj7q4qqs3ivri@pd.tnic> <CALCETrVrQRUn6PoBBGSD8+-wRrWp3mQtKY1sYnCRFyDBte5usA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712071814200.1835@nanos> <665F1CA8-D012-4465-B5F7-E81E088847DB@amacapital.net>
 <20171208073454.dicyefwncsihq7sm@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712081033040.1840@nanos>
 <20171208094400.wqnezwukq5yx4mgq@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712081051060.1840@nanos>
 <20171208113128.hdpeznolztrdzjpf@gmail.com> <CALCETrUgpFAuR4Y2x+QC1mOubCQr-m+s6_gK34A_ge5QQ9a-wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712081835390.1840@nanos>
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:42:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrVVaSLKYzL3LyaF0orcTfRTxYvfHZ=FPCSG7ZASYGbiDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LDT improvements
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1206
Lines: 26

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Can we take a step back here?  I think there are four vaguely sane
>> ways to make the LDT work:
>>
>> 1. The way it is right now -- in vmalloc space.  The only real
>> downside is that it requires exposing that part of vmalloc space in
>> the user tables, which is a bit gross.
>>
>> 2. In some fixmap-like space, which is what my patch does, albeit
>> buggily.  This requires a PGD that we treat as per-mm, not per-cpu,
>> but that's not so bad.
>>
>> 3. In one of the user PGDs but above TASK_SIZE_MAX.  This is
>> functionally almost identical to #2, except that there's more concern
>> about exploits that write past TASK_SIZE_MAX.
>>
>> 4. In an actual vma.  I don't see the benefit of doing this at all --
>> it's just like #2 except way more error prone.  Hell, you have to make
>> sure that you can't munmap or mremap it, which isn't a consideration
>> at all with the other choices.
>
> Why? You can unmap vdso or uprobe or whatever VMAs and you will simply
> die. You get what you asked for.

But if you unmap ldt and then map something else at the same VA, you're root.