Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h

[Zachary Amsden]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/