linux-kernel - Re: AT_ENTROPY1 and AT_ENTROPY2 values for include/linux/auxvec.h

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]

Message-Id: <1182128803.22999.9.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:06:43 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Alexander Gabert <pappy@...too.org>
Cc:	libc-alpha@...rceware.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	hardened@...too.org
Subject: Re: AT_ENTROPY1 and AT_ENTROPY2 values for include/linux/auxvec.h

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:40 +0200, Alexander Gabert wrote:
> Hello glibc and kernel maintainers,
> 
> could you please add two AT_ entries to include/linux/auxvec.h in the 
> upstream kernel and the respective elf/elf.h definitions in glibc.


while I'm not per se against adding such aux vectors, I think it's a bad
mistake to make them a config option (and 2 options at that!!)

Stack protector is very widely deployed today
(Fedora,RHEL,SLES,OpenSUSE,Gentoo etc), so I can sure see the point of
helping it a bit... but I'd like to see a little more data on how the
current approach isn't sufficient.


-
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/