* Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > I think there is something way more subtle going on here, and it bothers me
> > exactly because it is subtle. It may be that it is OK right now, but there
> > are alarm bells going on all over my brain on this. I'm going to stare at
> > this for a bit and see if I can make sense of it; but if it turns out that
> > what we have is something really problematic it might be better to apply a
> > big
> > hammer and avoid future breakage once and for all.
>
> Sounds good. I would just like to decouple this from the KASLR improvements.
> This fragility hasn't changed as a result of that work, but I'd really like
> to
> have that series put to bed -- I've spent a lot of time already cleaning up
> it
> and other areas of the compressed kernel code. :)
So I disagree on that: while technically kASLR is independent of relocations,
your
series already introduced such a relocation bug and I don't want to further
increase complexity via kASLR without first increasing robustness.
So could we try something to either detect or avoid such subtle and hard to
debug
relocation bugs in very early boot code?
Thanks,
Ingo
