[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:00:07 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: Colin Vidal <colin@...dal.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC v2 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC
> I think this would be fine -- though I think it should be a distinct
> patch. Anything we can do to separate changes into logical chunks
> makes reviewing easier.
>
> i.e. patch ordering could look like this:
>
> - original series with HARDENED_ATOMIC depending on !GENERIC_ATOMIC64
> - implementation of protection on GENERIC_ATOMIC64, removing above
> depends limitation
> - ARM hardened atomic implementation
>Great!
>Elena, I will wait that you applies HARDENED_ATOMIC depending on
>!GENERIC_ATOMIC64, and I submit a new RFC with the implementation of protection on GENERIC_ATOMIC64 and a v2 of ARM port. Sounds good for everybody?
>Change pushed. Now it should be !GENERIC_ATOMIC64. Hopefully this for now concludes our state on atomic64* variables.
>Now we are left with local_wrap_t problem still... But it doesn’t concern arm I think at all.
Ok, we managed to address this today finally hopefully in a non-ugly way. At least we are kind of happy with it.
So, from our side what we do today/tomorrow with Hans:
- finalize coverage on atomic64 and local wrap functions
- add missing tests for atomic64 and local
- rebase on top of latest linux-next
- compile test and test run the whole thing in different combinations
- send rfcv3 with also all atomic maintainers included for wider blame/feedback
Does it sound like a good plan for everyone?
Best Regards,
Elena.
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.
