[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:12:11 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: [PATCH v2] bug: further enhance use of CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION
This continues in applying the CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION tests where
appropriate, and pulling similar CONFIGs under the same check. Most
notably, this adds the checks to refcount_t so that system builders can
Oops their kernels when encountering a potential refcounter attack. (And
so now the LKDTM tests for refcount issues pass correctly.)
The series depends on the changes in -next made to lib/refcount.c,
so it might be easiest if this goes through the locking tree...
v2 is a rebase to -next and adjusts to using WARN_ONCE() instead of WARN().
-Kees
v1 was here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/6/720
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.
