| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 15:21:47 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: pageexec@...email.hu Cc: "Larry H." <research@...reption.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 13:42 +0200, pageexec@...email.hu wrote: > > Why waste time on this? > > e.g., when userland executes a syscall, it 'can run kernel code'. if that kernel > code (note: already exists, isn't provided by the attacker) gives unintended > kernel memory back to userland, there is a problem. that problem is addressed > in part by early sanitizing of freed data. Right, so the whole point is to minimize the impact of actual bugs, right? So why not focus on fixing those actual bugs? Can we create tools to help us find such bugs faster? We use sparse for a lot of static checking, we create things like lockdep and kmemcheck to dynamically find trouble. Can we instead of working around a problem, fix the actual problem? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists