Linux Kernel Seeing Work To Implement MEMFD "Secret Memory Areas"

[pal666]

Hm, I just hope this won't be misused for some kind of anti-user purposes like DRM.

nobody can use your kernel against you. and if it is their kernel, they can write any patch they want

[pal666]

doubt this will be used by DRM, but I also doubt any noteworthy software will use it

what makes you think ibm enterprise linux isn't noteworthy?

[pal666]

How immune will these be against spectre type vulnerabilities ...
Now the attackers will know where to focus.

sure, why use encryption at all it if can focus attackers or be vulnerable to broken intel hardware

[pal666]

I really don't see how "secret areas" in RAM is useful though. Perhaps for encryption keys?

perhaps you should read article past title before posting comments?

Technically, every area is supposed to be secret from people not authorized to view it.

technically you are ignoring existence of root account

And even that being the case, there's side channel software and hardware attacks that would render this useless. What's this supposed to protect against, what additional complexity using a language known to produce further security problems just by being used would nullify whatever this would nominally protect against?

why don't you go somewhere and write your own kernel in language of your choice and with features of your choice instead of posting bullshit on forums?

[danmcgrew]

Perhaps if the most popular processor were a Harvard-architecture machine rather than a von-Neumann-architecture machine, this would not be a problem. Perhaps...

s.a. Phoronix, https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...ess-Space-2020

[xorbe]

This is in the computing trend that os/hypervisor only manages where memory is, but doesn't have actual access to said memory (or reading it results in encrypted data). Cloud tech

[Ironmask]

what makes you think ibm enterprise linux isn't noteworthy?

You've got me scratching my head. You must realize I meant applications, right? Or did you actually think I said "I doubt Linux will use Linux"

[Guest]

As long as you have the ability to compile your own Linux kernel, this new feature would not be effective for creating DRM, as you could just make a version of your kernel that allowed you to freely inspect "encrypted" memory of one process using another process. This feature, by itself, is not harmful to users. I'd certainly appreciate its presence in my kernels as it would allow my programs to conveniently create safer areas to store my cryptographic secrets.

You're assuming it will be used for DRM on your Linux installation. That won't be the case. It'll be used for DRM in Chrome OS, Android devices, and many others that use Linux kernels and are locked down. You won't have a choice in the matter.

[cybertraveler]

You're assuming it will be used for DRM on your Linux installation. That won't be the case. It'll be used for DRM in Chrome OS, Android devices, and many others that use Linux kernels and are locked down. You won't have a choice in the matter.

"on your Linux installation". You mean GNU-Linux right? It's confusing to talk about "Linux" as a Desktop OS. Especially, while in the same paragraph referencing other non GNU operating systems which use Linux.

Linux is a kernel.

GNU is a project to create a UNIX-like OS. That's the originator behind the existence of GNU-Linux desktops we use today and it still is responsible for a huge amount of code in our desktops and is responsible for a huge amount of the conventions that GNU-Linux programs follow.

IIRC you can or could install Debian with a FreeBSD or HURD kernel. Thus Debian would be a GNU-FreeBSD or pure GNU operating system distribution.

There's always a bunch of people that are quick to say "LibreOffice / X / GNU / Linux / blabla OS" when someone speaks clearly about GNU-Linux. These people are more confused that your average on this matter as they are purposefully trying to confuse themselves and others (as opposed to be incidentally confused). Neither X, nor LibreOffice are or were projects to create an Operating System; GNU is and was. The GNU project was highly successful in its goal too.

Also: if you re-read the bit you quoted you'll see I was clear about what I wrote. Hint: the very first sentence contains an if statement.

Personally I'm not interested in many non-GNU operating systems that happen to use the Linux kernel (e.g. Android & Chrome OS; both of which are mass surveillance tools which provide a child-like, operating system).

[pal666]

You've got me scratching my head. You must realize I meant applications, right? Or did you actually think I said "I doubt Linux will use Linux"

ibm enterprise linux contains plenty of applications. so why none of them will use features developed by ibm engineers? for example, what will stop them from patching openssl? in case it wasn't clear, by ibm i mean redhat