Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:55:10 -0400 From: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com> To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Scotty Bauer <sbauer@....utah.edu> Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, wmealing@...hat.com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] SROP Mitigation: Sigreturn Cookies > Then there's an unanswered question: is this patch acceptable given > that it's an ABI break? Security fixes are sometimes an exception to > the "no ABI breaks" rule, but it's by no means an automatic exception. > > --Andy It seems this could be worked around in general. Processes can have a bit tracking whether this is enabled, and CRIU can save/restore it. It would just leave it off for resuming old saved processes. Should CRIU really be covered by the kernel's ABI guarantee though? It seems like this was meant to be extensible, so it's adding an extra ABI guarantee that wasn't there before. It makes sense to freeze this ABI for CRIU, but a version field should be added first in one final ABI break if it's not too late. Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 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.