On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<li...@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:19:08PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> @@ -1373,13 +1373,24 @@ static void __init map_lowmem(void)
>> if (start >= end)
>> break;
>>
>> - if (end < kernel_x_start || start >= kernel_x_end) {
>> + if (end < kernel_x_start) {
>> map.pfn = __phys_to_pfn(start);
>> map.virtual = __phys_to_virt(start);
>> map.length = end - start;
>> map.type = MT_MEMORY_RWX;
>>
>> create_mapping(&map);
>> + } else if (start >= kernel_x_end) {
>> + map.pfn = __phys_to_pfn(start);
>> + map.virtual = __phys_to_virt(start);
>> + map.length = end - start;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_KERNMEM_PERMS
>> + map.type = MT_MEMORY_RW;
>> +#else
>> + map.type = MT_MEMORY_RWX;
>> +#endif
>> +
>> + create_mapping(&map);
>
>
> I'm looking at this, and wondering two things. Firstly, why isn't it
> MT_MEMORY_RW in the first place. Secondly, why do you need to make
> this depend on CONFIG_ARM_KERNMEM_PERMS at all?
>
> I think the first is an oversight by me (and is a case which never came
> up in my testing, because most of my platforms don't have segmented
> memory layouts.)
>
> The second I think is not necessary - the memory region being considered
> is not part of the kernel at all, and so should not be executable in any
> shape or form.
I'm happy to change this. My original intent was to make layout for
builds without CONFIG_ARM_KERNMEM_PERMS identical to what was there
before, so I took this step to make sure.
I will drop the #ifdef and respin. Does the rest look ok? Shall I send
a pull request?
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/
