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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:15:04 +0000 From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, jlee@...e.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jforbes@...hat.com, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/27] bpf: Restrict kernel image access functions when the kernel is locked down Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote: > > TBH, I've no idea how bpf does anything, so I can't say whether this is > > better, overkill or insufficient. > > ok. To make it clear: > Nacked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org> > For the current patch. > Unnecessary checks for no good reason in performance critical > functions are not acceptable. They aren't unnecessary checks. Can you please suggest if there's some way more suitable than just killing bpf entirely? I don't know the code, and I presume you do. David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists