[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+D_s6qha959dCQ3ViMuXzvOwFiw=9Bsh_=wT_7maqEKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:46:36 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Keun-O Park <kpark3469@...il.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] usercopy: reimplement arch_within_stack_frames
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:16 AM, Keun-O Park <kpark3469@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
>> Hi Sahara,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:19:47PM +0400, kpark3469@...il.com wrote:
>>> From: Sahara <keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae>
>>>
>>> This series of patches introduce the arm64 arch_within_stack_frames
>>> implementation using stacktrace functions. Also the base code is
>>> moved from thread_info.h to stacktrace.h. x86 code is reimplemented
>>> to use frame pointer unwinder functions.
>>
>> What's the status on this series? I'm ok taking the arm64 patch from James
>> to bring us up to speed with x86, but it doesn't make sense without the
>> first patch in the series because the arch callback is out-of-line.
>>
>> Will
>
> I haven't received any response from Kees or other engineers about
> this series of patches yet.
> Hi Kees, any comment on these patches to put these on the next stage?
Hi! Sorry for the delay, I'll send some notes now...
-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.
