Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 17:07:32 -0600 From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, George Spelvin <lkml@....org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bug: further enhance use of CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 03:12:11PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This continues in applying the CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION tests where > appropriate, and pulling similar CONFIGs under the same check. Most > notably, this adds the checks to refcount_t so that system builders can > Oops their kernels when encountering a potential refcounter attack. (And > so now the LKDTM tests for refcount issues pass correctly.) > > The series depends on the changes in -next made to lib/refcount.c, > so it might be easiest if this goes through the locking tree... > > v2 is a rebase to -next and adjusts to using WARN_ONCE() instead of WARN(). > > -Kees > > v1 was here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/6/720 Ping? Just wondering what ever happened to this 3+ year old series... -- Josh
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.