linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] [REVIEW-REQUEST] [v4] System Calls for Memory Protection Keys

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:	Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:47:21 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, hughd@...gle.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] [REVIEW-REQUEST] [v4] System Calls for Memory
 Protection Keys

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 05:47:19AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I'm resending these because Ingo has said that he'd "love to have
> some high level MM review & ack for these syscall ABI extensions."
> The only changes to the code in months have been in the selftests.
> So, if anyone has been putting off taking a look at these, I'd
> appreciate a look now.
> 

I took a look at the patches other than the self-tests and the
documentation. I did not see any major problems other than thinking
there is a lot of ways for userspace to shoot itself in the foot and
lose the protection pkeys is meant to give.

That said, consider the review to be unreliable on the grounds I haven't
followed pkeys development and this is my first time looking in its
general direction.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs