[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 10:19:01 +0000
From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To: kpark3469@...il.com
CC: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
keescook@...omium.org, will.deacon@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
panand@...hat.com, keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: usercopy: Implement stack frame object
validation
On 05/02/17 12:14, kpark3469@...il.com wrote:
> From: Sahara <keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae>
>
> This implements arch_within_stack_frames() for arm64 that should
> validate if a given object is contained by a kernel stack frame.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sahara <keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae>
> Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Careful, you should only include tags like this when they are explicitly given.
I don't remember doing that, and don't see it here:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/01/26/8
I'd like to avoid having two sets of code that walk the stack.
I will have a go at a version of this patch that uses arm64s existing
walk_stackframe() machinery - lets find out if there is a good reason not to do
it that way!
Thanks,
James
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.
