[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101222162118.GC20358@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:21:18 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
tgraf@...radead.org, eugeneteo@...nel.org, kees.cook@...onical.com,
davem@...emloft.net, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, eparis@...isplace.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] kptr_restrict for hiding kernel pointers
* Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le mercredi 22 décembre 2010 à 08:13 -0500, Dan Rosenberg a écrit :
> > > Hm, why is it off by default? Is there some user-space regression that is caused by
> > > this?
> > >
> > > We really want good security measures to be active by default (and to work by
> > > default) - they are not worth much if they are not.
> > >
> >
> > I agree entirely, but I've received a lot of resistance to these types
> > of changes in net. I'm afraid that if it's enabled by default, no one
> > will actually allow use of the %pK specifier where it should be used.
> >
>
> Actually, "net resistance" was against your first patches, using quick
> and dirty techniques (Should I remind you some of them ?)
>
> Now you have a helper, it should be easier to integrate the changes.
Great - if the concept itself wasnt objected to then i think we should flip the
default to on.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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