lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] paravirt.h
Andi Kleen wrote:
> I don't see why paravirt ops is that much more sensitive
> than most other kernel code.
>
>
>> It would be a lot safer if we could have the struct paravirt_ops in
>> protected read-only const memory space, set it up in the core kernel
>> early on in boot when we play "guess todays hypervisor" and then make
>> sure it stays in read only (even to kernel) space.
>>
>
> By default we don't make anything read only because that would
> mess up the 2MB kernel mapping.
>
> In general i don't think making select code in the kernel
> read only is a good idea, because as long as you don't
> protect everything including stacks etc. there will be always
> attack points where supposedly protected code relies
> on unprotected state. If someone can write to kernel
> memory you already lost.
>
> And it adds TLB pressure.
>

And it doesn't work for VMI or lhype, both of which might modify
paravirt_ops way later in the boot process, when loaded as a module.
Where did this conversation come from? I don't see it on any list I'm
subscribed to.

Zach
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-22 19:19    [W:0.103 / U:1.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site