linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] x86: SROP mitigation: implement signal cookies

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:45:54 -0800
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Scotty Bauer <sbauer@....utah.edu>,
	Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@...tfour.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Abhiram Balasubramanian <abhiram@...utah.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] x86: SROP mitigation: implement signal cookies

> Is this compatible with existing userspace?  CRIU and DOSEMU seem like
> things that are likely to blow up to me.

It should at least make it a sysctl.

> 
> We may need to make this type of mitigation be opt-in.  I'm already
> vaguely planning an opt-in mitigation framework for vsyscall runtime
> disablement, and this could use the same opt-in mechanism.

Generally asking people to rely on frame works that don't exist
is not good review feedback.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only