On 10/03/2013 03:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> This is highly problematic. The standard protocol is to hoist the
>> initramfs as high as possible in memory, so this may really unacceptably
>> restrict the available range.
>
> Doesn't this depend on the boot loader's behavior?
It does, but the recom
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:23 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/03/2013 01:53 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Examine all the known unsafe areas and avoid them by just raising the
>> minimum relocation position to be past them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
>
>> + /* Minimum location must be above all
On 10/03/2013 01:53 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Examine all the known unsafe areas and avoid them by just raising the
> minimum relocation position to be past them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
> + /* Minimum location must be above all these regions: */
This is highly problematic. The standard
Examine all the known unsafe areas and avoid them by just raising the
minimum relocation position to be past them.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
---
arch/x86/boot/compressed/aslr.c | 50 +++
arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c | 10 ++--
arch/x86/boot/compresse
Examine all the known unsafe areas and avoid them by just raising the
minimum relocation position to be past them.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
---
arch/x86/boot/compressed/aslr.c | 50 +++
arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c | 10 ++--
arch/x86/boot/compresse
5 matches
Mail list logo