linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] exec: Use sane stack rlimit under secureexec

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 08:04:54 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] exec: Use sane stack rlimit under secureexec

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I'm open to whatever. It's not clear where it should go, but if
>> you want to take it and Linus doesn't want it "early", that works for
>> me. Linus, Andrew, thoughts?
>
> I'd actually like this to go in separately from all the other security stuff.
>
> And I just checked this on a separate branch, just because I wanted to
> see what the overall diff was. There's a conflict with apparmor
> already - the resolution looks fairly straightforward, but considering
> the area this touches, it would probably be good that Kees keeps this
> branch and verifies things like that.

Do you want me to carry this for -next and send it as a distinct pull
request for v4.14?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security