Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:42:33 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	William Roberts <william.c.roberts@...el.com>,
	Chris Fries <cfries@...gle.com>, Dave Weinstein <olorin@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 0/6] add more kernel pointer filter
 options

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:50:51PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:58:50AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 11:06:44AM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > > Version 2 of Greg's patch series with changes made as suggested by comments to V1.
> > > 
> > > Applies on top of Linus' current development tree
> > > 
> > > a8c964eacb21288b2dbfa9d80cee5968a3b8fb21
> > > 
> > > V1 cover letter:
> > > 
> > > Here's a short patch series from Chris Fries and Dave Weinstein that
> > > implements some new restrictions when printing out kernel pointers, as
> > > well as the ability to whitelist kernel pointers where needed.
> > > 
> > > These patches are based on work from William Roberts, and also are
> > > inspired by grsecurity's %pP to specifically whitelist a kernel pointer,
> > > where it is always needed, like the last patch in the series shows, in
> > > the UIO drivers (UIO requires that you know the address, it's a hardware
> > > address, nothing wrong with seeing that...)
> > > 
> > > I haven't done much to this patch series, only forward porting it from
> > > an older kernel release (4.4) and a few minor tweaks. [snip]
> > 
> > Nice!  Thanks for doing this work, looks great to me.  Care to resend
> > the next version as a "real" one (i.e. no RFC)?
> 
> First thing tomorrow!
> 
> Is correct protocol for me to add your Signed-off-by tag to each patch from this RFC? Or is the
> protocol for you to add the tag yourself when the real version is posted? 

You can add my signed-off-by to your new patches, they shouldn't change
much with the exception of:

> I intend splitting one of the patches into two as suggested by Will.

And that's fine to keep my s-o-b for.

thanks for asking,

greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.