[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140310130224.70ec6a1940ec636bfb89f6bb@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:02:24 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Honig <ahonig@...gle.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] kallsyms: handle special absolute symbols
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:58:06 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 17:00:23 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >> Handles 0-based per_cpu variables as being absolute so they are
> >> not relocated under kASLR on x86_64.
> >
> > Would it be prudent to revert 0f55159d091cb1e5 ("kallsyms: fix absolute
> > addresses for kASLR") then sort all this out for 3.15?
>
> My opinion is that if it breaks a real-life case (avr32), it should be
> reverted.
We aren't going to be able to test this on 40 architectures so yes,
let's take the cautious approach.
> The only people affected by the kallsyms per_cpu relocation
> reporting bug are those using kASLR on x86, and even then the bug is a
> corner case on live kernel debugging.
>
> I am fine either way.
--
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