Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:09:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <>
To: David Windsor <>
Cc: Elena Reshetova <>,,
	Kees Cook <>,,,,,, Hans Liljestrand <>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 01/13] Add architecture independent hardened
 atomic base

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 03:41:19PM -0500, David Windsor wrote:
> The work done by this series adds overflow protection to existing
> kernel atomic_t users.
> In the initial upstream submission, do we want to include my series
> which extends HARDENED_ATOMIC protection to cover additional kernel
> reference counters, which are currently integers (and thus
> unprotected):
>  * struct fs_struct.users
>  * struct tty_port.count
>  * struct tty_ldisc_ops.refcount
>  * struct pipe_inode_info.{readers|writers|files|waiting_writers}
>  * struct kmem_cache.refcount
> I can see arguments both for and against including new HARDENED_ATOMIC
> users in the initial upstream RFC.  Personally, I think it might be
> more appropriate to add new HARDENED_ATOMIC users in subsequent RFCs,
> after the original feature is merged.
> In case folks are interested, I submitted this as an RFC, which can be
> found here:

Be sure to submit this to a tiny list and not Cc the people who work on
this stuff.

> The code itself can be found here:

I'm far too busy to go look at random places of the intartubes.

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.