[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:37:24 +0200
From: Colin Vidal <colin@...dal.org>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC
Hi Elena,
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 12:00 +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> >
> > I think this would be fine -- though I think it should be a distinct
> > patch. Anything we can do to separate changes into logical chunks
> > makes reviewing easier.
> >
> > i.e. patch ordering could look like this:
> >
> > - original series with HARDENED_ATOMIC depending on !GENERIC_ATOMIC64
> > - implementation of protection on GENERIC_ATOMIC64, removing above
> > depends limitation
> > - ARM hardened atomic implementation
>
> >
> > Great!
>
> >
> > Elena, I will wait that you applies HARDENED_ATOMIC depending on
> > !GENERIC_ATOMIC64, and I submit a new RFC with the implementation of protection on GENERIC_ATOMIC64 and a v2 of ARM port. Sounds good for everybody?
>
> >
> > Change pushed. Now it should be !GENERIC_ATOMIC64. Hopefully this for now concludes our state on atomic64* variables.
>
Thanks!
> >
> > Now we are left with local_wrap_t problem still... But it doesn’t concern arm I think at all.
Indeed, I never notice it (however, I try to make tiny build config,
since my laptop would take a looooong time to compile otherwise).
>
> Ok, we managed to address this today finally hopefully in a non-ugly way. At least we are kind of happy with it.
> So, from our side what we do today/tomorrow with Hans:
>
> - finalize coverage on atomic64 and local wrap functions
> - add missing tests for atomic64 and local
> - rebase on top of latest linux-next
> - compile test and test run the whole thing in different combinations
> - send rfcv3 with also all atomic maintainers included for wider blame/feedback
>
> Does it sound like a good plan for everyone?
>
Sounds good for me!
FYI, I will probably takes a week or two before posting a new RFC
containing (1) the generic atomic64 part, and (2) a new version of the
ARM port, since I have some work to improve of the ARM port. I hope
this is ok!
Best Regards,
Colin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
