linux-kernel - Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 00/20] siginfo cleanups for x86

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:   Tue, 18 Sep 2018 22:55:08 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 00/20] siginfo cleanups for x86

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I have been slowly going thought and reworking the arch specific
> functions that generate siginfo.  The problems I have been addressing
> is that using siginfo directly is error prone.  Using siginfo directly
> makes it easy to leave fields initialized, and get confused about
> which fields need to be filled in.
> 
> To address this I have added a series of helper functions to
> kernel/signal.c, that are specific to exactly one use of struct siginfo
> and take the parameters they need.
> 
> To use these functions the x86 signal handling needs some cleanups but
> the net result appears to be less code that is easier to follow.
> 
> If while looking over these patches you see anything please let me know.

Only nitpicks.

> I don't think I missed something but to err is human.

I went through the changes a couple of times, but failed to spot
something. Was pleasure to read that set!

> Likewise if you would like to merge these patches via the tip tree
> let me know.  Otherwise after the review is complete I plan on merging
> these into my siginfo tree.  At this point I believe all of the
> prerequisite patches are merged so it should not make a difference.

Works either way. Ingo?

Thanks,

	tglx