Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:13:26 +0300
From: Alexander Popov <>
To: Kees Cook <>
Cc:, PaX Team <>,
 Brad Spengler <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
 Andy Lutomirski <>, Tycho Andersen <>,
 Laura Abbott <>, Mark Rutland <>,
 Ard Biesheuvel <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
 Thomas Gleixner <>, "H . Peter Anvin" <>,
 Peter Zijlstra <>, "Dmitry V . Levin"
 <>, X86 ML <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 0/6] Introduce the STACKLEAK feature and a test for

On 19.01.2018 00:13, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 5:09 AM, Alexander Popov <> wrote:
>> So I don't think that (1) without (2) is actually a good feature. I would
>> propose to refrain from separating the stack erasing and the lowest_stack tracking.
> How about an option to clear the _entire_ stack, then, when the plugin
> isn't available? That gives us a range of options and provides an easy
> way to compare the performance of the tracking. i.e. can compare off,
> full, and smart.

Yes, I should try it. I'll return with the results of the performance tests.
We'll discuss them; if full stack erasing is not too slow, I'll introduce it in
the 8'th version of the patch series.


Best regards,

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.