Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:45:54 -0800 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> Cc: Scotty Bauer <sbauer@....utah.edu>, Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@...tfour.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Abhiram Balasubramanian <abhiram@...utah.edu> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] x86: SROP mitigation: implement signal cookies > Is this compatible with existing userspace? CRIU and DOSEMU seem like > things that are likely to blow up to me. It should at least make it a sysctl. > > We may need to make this type of mitigation be opt-in. I'm already > vaguely planning an opt-in mitigation framework for vsyscall runtime > disablement, and this could use the same opt-in mechanism. Generally asking people to rely on frame works that don't exist is not good review feedback. -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
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.