Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:11:58 -0500 From: David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Add PAX_REFCOUNT overflow protection Hi Kees, On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > Hi David, > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:57 AM, David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org> wrote: >>> NOTE: This is a v2 submission because patch 3/5 in v1 was too large to sent >>> to kernel-hardening. Taking that as a sign that the patch needed to be split, >>> I'm sending this version of the patchset, with the patches split more or less >>> on a per-maintainer basis (except for those in drivers/). > > How's the next spin coming? It looks like we have some new real-world > examples of exploits that would have been blocked by this protection: > > http://perception-point.io/2016/01/14/analysis-and-exploitation-of-a-linux-kernel-vulnerability-cve-2016-0728/ > > :) > I'm currently working on v3 of this patchset: porting the patches to linux-next and incorporating suggested changes to v2. I'm fairly well along, but need just a bit more time I'm a bit busy at the moment, so I expect realistically to have time to finish this at the beginning of February. Thanks, David > -Kees > > -- > Kees Cook > Chrome OS & Brillo Security
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.