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 23:25:08 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <>
        Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Will Deacon <>,
        Elena Reshetova
        Arnd Bergmann <>, Thomas Gleixner
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin"
        LKML <>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC

On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 13:23 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:

> If we don't use opt-out for atomics, we're going to be in the same
> situation where we have to constantly review every commit with an
> atomic for exploitable refcount flaws. Kicking this down from
> "privilege escalation" to "DoS" is a significant change in the
> kernel's weaknesses.

The only way I see around that would be to totally get
rid of the name atomic_t, forcing people with out of
tree code to use kref_t, or whatever name we pick for
the variable type that can wrap.

Something like checkpatch or a patch checking bot
could warn whenever new code is submitted that uses
the counter type that can wrap.

Not sure whether I like my idea :)

All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 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.