[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:25:08 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Peter Zijlstra
<peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Elena Reshetova
<elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Thomas Gleixner
<tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin"
<h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC
On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 13:23 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> If we don't use opt-out for atomics, we're going to be in the same
> situation where we have to constantly review every commit with an
> atomic for exploitable refcount flaws. Kicking this down from
> "privilege escalation" to "DoS" is a significant change in the
> kernel's weaknesses.
The only way I see around that would be to totally get
rid of the name atomic_t, forcing people with out of
tree code to use kref_t, or whatever name we pick for
the variable type that can wrap.
Something like checkpatch or a patch checking bot
could warn whenever new code is submitted that uses
the counter type that can wrap.
Not sure whether I like my idea :)
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
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.
