linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC] x86: restrict pid namespaces to 32 or 64 bit syscalls

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:58:15 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc:	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>,
	Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC] x86: restrict pid namespaces to 32 or 64 bit syscalls

> Perhaps :) I wish it had landed after 9 revisions and at least two
> variant patches. Despite that, I think it's great to pull in
> additional requirements, like COMPAT locking, to make sure that the
> solution is really a good one.  It may also be that my entire original
> approach was wrong and should be revisited too.  Everyone's comments
> here and the proposed patch itself certainly have me thinking.

I didn't see anything wrong with it. Also the first try doesn't 
need to be perfect anyways, it can be always changed later.
 
How about you just repost it?

-Andi
--
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/