[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41BFF6CB@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
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.
