Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 08:58:31 +0100
From: Christian Borntraeger <>
To: Kees Cook <>, Jiri Slaby <>,
        Julian Wiedmann <>,
        Ursula Braun <>
Cc: Alexander Viro <>,,
        David Windsor <>, Pekka Enberg <>,
        David Rientjes <>,
        Joonsoo Kim <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,,,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Christoph Lameter <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Laura Abbott <>, Mark Rutland <>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Christoffer Dall <>,
        Dave Kleikamp <>, Jan Kara <>,
        Luis de Bethencourt <>,
        Marc Zyngier
 <>, Rik van Riel <>,
        Matthew Garrett <>,,,,, Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Michal Kubecek <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/38] usercopy: Mark kmalloc caches as
 usercopy caches

On 28.01.20 00:19, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 14. 11. 19, 22:27, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:21:54PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> How is iucv the only network protocol that has run into this? Do others
>>>> use a bounce buffer?
>>> Another solution would be to use a dedicated kmem cache (instead of the
>>> shared kmalloc dma one)?
>> Has there been any conclusion to this thread yet? For the time being, we
>> disabled HARDENED_USERCOPY on s390...
> I haven't heard anything new. What did people think of a separate kmem
> cache?

Adding Julian and Ursula. A separate kmem cache for iucv might be indeed
a solution for the user hardening issue.
On the other hand not marking the DMA caches still seems questionable.

For reference
the kernel hardening now triggers a warning.

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.