Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 09:06:10 +0000 From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com> To: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> CC: "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>, "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com> Subject: RE: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 01/13] Add architecture independent hardened atomic base On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:24:36PM +0200, Elena Reshetova wrote: > include/asm-generic/local.h | 3 + > include/asm-generic/local_wrap.h | 63 +++++++++++ >Seriously? Is there a single instance of local_t where any of this matters? Oh, I would be the first person to vote for dropping the local_t changes out of this patchset! (we actually proposed this in past). Reason why we had to deal with it is that couple of places (like kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c ) utilizes local_t extensively for stuff we want to allow to overflow, like indexing and etc. So, if we want to opt-out of protection for that types and preserve the overall logic of the changes, we need to add the local_*_wrap() functions. But local changes is such a pain and used so little, that would be great to solve it in other way than this. Just so far noone suggested a better way.
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.