Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 06:20:25 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>, Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, arozansk@...hat.com, Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>, "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] Implement fast refcount overflow protection On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kees Cook wrote: > >> A new patch has been added at the start of this series to make the default >> refcount_t implementation just use an unchecked atomic_t implementation, >> since many kernel subsystems want to be able to opt out of the full >> validation, since it includes a small performance overhead. When enabling >> CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL, the full validation is used. >> >> The other two patches provide overflow protection on x86 without incurring >> a performance penalty. The changelog for patch 3 is reproduced here for >> details: > > > To be sure I'm getting this right, after this all archs with the exception > of x86 will use the regular atomic_t ("unsecure") flavor, right? If a build does not select CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL and lacks CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT, refcount_t will be the same at atomic_t (i.e. no change from the historical behavior where all the ref counters in the kernel used atomic_t). -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
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.