kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH 1/9] mm: Hardened usercopy

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1607072133550.4083@nanos>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 21:34:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, 
    Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, 
    Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>, 
    Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, 
    Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, 
    Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, 
    Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, 
    Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, 
    Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, 
    Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
    "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, 
    Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, 
    Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, 
    Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
    Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, 
    Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 
    Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, 
    Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, 
    Laura Abbott <labbott@...oraproject.org>, 
    "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, 
    linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, 
    "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, 
    sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>, 
    linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, 
    "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] mm: Hardened usercopy

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > I'd rather make that a weak function returning 1 which can be replaced by
> > x86 for CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y. That also allows other architectures to
> > implement their specific frame checks.
> 
> Yeah, though I prefer CONFIG-controlled stuff over weak functions, but
> I agree, something like arch_check_stack_frame(...) or similar. I'll
> build something for this on the next revision.

I'm fine with CONFIG_CONTROLLED as long as the ifdeffery is limited to header
files.

Thanks,

	tglx

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.