[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090531114901.GA10598@oblivion.subreption.com>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 04:49:01 -0700
From: "Larry H." <research@...reption.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
pageexec@...email.hu,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page
allocator
On 09:30 Sun 31 May , Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Larry H. wrote:
>> OK, I'm going to squeeze some time and provide patches that perform the
>> same my original page bit ones did, but using kzfree. Behold code like
>> in the tty buffer management, which uses the page allocator directly for
>> allocations greater than PAGE_SIZE in length. That needs special
>> treatment, and is exactly the reason I've proposed unconditional
>> sanitization since the original patches were rejected.
>
> You might want to also do the patch Alan suggested for the security
> conscious people. That is, do a memset() in every page free and wrap that
> under CONFIG_SECURITY_PARANOIA or something. There's no reason the kzfree()
> patches and that can't co-exist.
I know you came late into the discussion, but if you had invested a
minute checking the thread, you would have spotted a patch in which a
Kconfig option was used to disable the sensitive page flag effects as whole.
The very first one.
I'm not wasting my time re-workign a patch which has been already
rejected. Go ahead and do it in your own time if you wish, it's GPL
anyway.
Larry
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists