From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9CCC19F28 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:05:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238546AbiHCOFF (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2022 10:05:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58142 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236494AbiHCOFC (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2022 10:05:02 -0400 Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B782530F57; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 07:05:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1659535501; x=1691071501; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yg5mD3Dj0CS+uFzrjjVlpHk1BBsTLHtsoJkssWr5R3w=; b=Okch79AIhz+1CYySR46P70UuutIewSUIFebnvZhU3TUUABUNsVGEb4jg /+naCNGvEzRbC4Knb75PAybOxXTbLoVniyqJksqWshri7zvqOwdOmeqLg mk/dAirsQYRJq7PugdK6C7FQv8ACKvLBeF9ZA2U5X0U/1UIc61LqX6TfO kqtN+qMdqxh/9V9sKcHndUM52/+wIjSj/tY9L1oJXvD4xjSgOkKNN0Ict D17DV4YeLWMyQFyvSGOZV6hHuDZvP76Euqq/VXzQLLc5EeQ+iZ2g0e+Ea 5QYBlRPI4BcY9vFnEn1vAePasA0XlwfNgZX89EeUQWV9qIpnoTGWN8DxX g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10428"; a="269450184" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,214,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="269450184" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Aug 2022 07:05:01 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,214,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="631160602" Received: from buichris-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.124.150]) ([10.209.124.150]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Aug 2022 07:05:00 -0700 Message-ID: <973736db-2480-bbaa-d2ce-6e1b6dd2ed0c@intel.com> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 07:05:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] x86_64: Harden compressed kernel, part 1 Content-Language: en-US To: Evgeniy Baskov Cc: Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Khoroshilov , linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org References: <893da11995f93a7ea8f7485d17bf356a@ispras.ru> <29312ea704885f1b8d3c229e1f22dad7@ispras.ru> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <29312ea704885f1b8d3c229e1f22dad7@ispras.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/2/22 16:45, Evgeniy Baskov wrote: > Partially. We do have known issues because kernel PE image is not > compliant with the MS PE and COFF specification v8.3 referenced by > the UEFI specification. UEFI implementations with stricter PE loaders > (e.g. mentioned above) fail to boot Linux kernel. That shows me that it's _possible_ to build a more strict PE loader that wouldn't load Linux. But, in practice is anyone using a more strict PE loader? Does anyone actually want that in practice? Or, again, is this more strict PE loader just an academic demonstration? The README starts: This branch demonstrates... That doesn't seem like something that's _important_ to deal with. Sounds like a proof-of-concept. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving thing, even if the benefits are far off. But, let's not fool ourselves.