Containers and kernel namespaces, and so forth are MEANINGLESS against the Meltdown and Sceptre problems. It's a hardware bug that lets any userspace process access anything the kernel can address.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Joel Wirāmu Pauling" <joel@aenertia.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 4:52pm
To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Morton" <chromatix99@gmail.com>, cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] KASLR: Do we have to worry about other arches than x86?

Well as I've argued before Lede ideally should be using to Kernel Namespaces (poor mans containers) for at a minimum the firewall and per-interface routing instances.

The stuff I am running at home is mostly on cheap Atom board, so it's a matter of squeezing out unneeded cruft on the platform. Also I don't want to be admining centos/rhel servers at home.

On 5 January 2018 at 10:47, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling <joel@aenertia.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 5 January 2018 at 01:09, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think we need to worry about it too much in a router context.
>> Virtual server folks, OTOH...
>>
>> - Jonathan Morton
>>
> Disagree - The Router is pretty much synonymous with NFV
>
> ; I run my lede instances at home on hypervisors - and this is definitely
> the norm in Datacentres now. We need to work through this quite carefully.

Yes, the NFV case is serious and what I concluded we had most to worry
about - before starting to worry about the lower end router chips
themselves. But I wasn't aware that people were actually trying to run
lede in that, I'd kind of expected
a more server-like distro to be used there. Why lede in a NFV? Ease of
configuration? Reduced attack surface? (hah)

The only x86 chip I use (aside from simulations) is the AMD one in the
apu2, which I don't know enough about as per speculation...

--

Dave Täht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-669-226-2619