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  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]
Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:03:23 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <>
Cc:	"" <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	linux-arch <>,
	Al Viro <>,
	Richard Weinberger <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Kees Cook <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] all arches, signal: Move restart_block to struct task_struct

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> If an attacker can cause a controlled kernel stack overflow,
>> overwriting the restart block is a very juicy exploit target.
>> Moving the restart block to struct task_struct prevents this
>> exploit.
>> Note that there are other fields in thread_info that are also easy
>> targets, at least on some architectures.
>> It's also a decent simplification, since the restart code is more or
>> less identical on all architectures.
> I think that's the most important change. Moving common stuff into
> common code. The side effect of slightly reducing the attack surface
> is nice, but as Al pointed out not really the big win here.

Having gotten exactly zero feedback from any arch maintainer outside
of x86, am I supposed to pester people further?


> Thanks,
>         tglx

Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists