[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:37:49 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, keescook@...omium.org,
arnd@...db.de, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
h.peter.anvin@...el.com, will.deacon@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:24:35PM +0200, Elena Reshetova wrote:
> This series brings the PaX/Grsecurity PAX_REFCOUNT
> feature support to the upstream kernel. All credit for the
> feature goes to the feature authors.
>
> The name of the upstream feature is HARDENED_ATOMIC
> and it is configured using CONFIG_HARDENED_ATOMIC and
> HAVE_ARCH_HARDENED_ATOMIC.
>
> This series only adds x86 support; other architectures are expected
> to add similar support gradually.
>
> More information about the feature can be found in the following
> commit messages.
No, this should be here. As it stands this is completely without
content.
In any case, NAK on this approach. Its the wrong way around.
_IF_ you want to do a non-wrapping variant, it must not be the default.
Since you need to audit every single atomic_t user in the kernel anyway,
it doesn't matter. But changing atomic_t to non-wrap by default is not
robust, if you forgot one, you can then trivially dos the kernel.
That said, I still don't much like this.
I would much rather you make kref useful and use that. It still means
you get to audit all refcounts in the kernel, but hey, you had to do
that anyway.
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.
