linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] x86: Introduce a new constant KERNEL_MAPPING

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170304135935.GB12083@x1>
Date:   Sat, 4 Mar 2017 21:59:35 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, yinghai@...nel.org, anderson@...hat.com,
        luto@...nel.org, thgarnie@...gle.com, kuleshovmail@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] x86: Introduce a new constant KERNEL_MAPPING_SIZE

On 03/04/17 at 12:55pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 06:10:37PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > BUT(!), don't take my word for it. Rather, do what the maintainers
> > > propose. Who knows, they might have a much better idea.
> > 
> > Sorry about that. Just think your words are very convincing on removing
> > people's doubt if it's risky to shrink kernel modules space to 1G. Will
> > remove the words mentioning you said it since you don't like it. Didn't
> > realize that, no offence.
> 
> No, this is not what I mean at all!
> 
> I'm saying, I tried to review your patches and I don't like the end
> result because it adds more complexity. And the reason(s) for it are not
> persuading me enough to make me say: "yeah, this is a good thing, I want
> it."
> 
> But this is only my opinion. That's all. The final decision is in the
> hands of the x86 maintainers.

Got it, sorry for the misunderstanding. I really appreciate your
reviewing, great comments and suggestions. Glad to see that now we
don't hesitate to shrink kernel modules area to 1G after discussion. I
will ping Ingo to ask if he has any suggestion since he has been taking
care of the KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE value changing.

Thanks
Baoquan