linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC v2] implement SL*B and stack usercopy runtime checks

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110719074043.GA3942@albatros>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:40:43 +0400
From:	Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To:	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC v2] implement SL*B and stack
 usercopy runtime checks

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:52 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > +noinline bool __kernel_access_ok(const void *ptr, unsigned long len)
> 
> noinline seems unneeded

Ah, understood what you mean.  It is .c, and users are in other .c, so
it is indeed redundant.

Thanks!

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
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/