Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/5] KVM: X86: Introducing ROE Protection Kernel
 Hardening
To:     Ahmed Soliman <ahmedsoliman0x666@gmail.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        nathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        =?UTF-8?B?6rmA7J246rK4?= <ovich00@gmail.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        nigel.edwards@hpe.com, Boris Lukashev <blukashev@sempervictus.com>,
        Hossam Hassan <7ossam9063@gmail.com>,
        Ahmed Lotfy <A7med.lotfey@gmail.com>,
        Mohamed Azab <mazab@vt.edu>
References: <20181026151223.16810-1-ahmedsoliman0x666@gmail.com>
 <1b3eb10e-c492-dc77-cbe6-3a3e692326d7@gmail.com>
 <CAAGnT3ao2YugWW_1TuZw4+OiLQsBYLXtcYjARagZ3pGwFhvGZg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2e91fc33-9601-b562-0fc5-4dc8756face4@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Nov 2018 17:56:02 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAGnT3ao2YugWW_1TuZw4+OiLQsBYLXtcYjARagZ3pGwFhvGZg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Ahmed,

On 01/11/2018 01:21, Ahmed Soliman wrote:
> Hello Igor,
>> This is very interesting, because it seems a very good match to the work
>> I'm doing, for supporting the creation of more targets for protection:
>>
>> https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/10/23/3
>>
>> In my case the protection would extend also to write-rate type of data.
>> There is an open problem of identifying legitimate write-rare
>> operations, however it should be possible to provide at least a certain
>> degree of confidence.
> 
> I have checked your patch set. In our work we were originally planning to do
> something similar to write_rare just so we can differentiate between memory
> chunks that may be modified and those that will be set once and never modify.
> I see you are planning to do a white paper too, actually we are doing
> an academic
> paper based on our work. If you would like to collaborate, so that ROE
> and write_rare
> would integrate well from the beginning, we will be glad to do so.

The offer is very kind, thanks a lot.
I will contact you in private.

--
igor