[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801050153290.2127@nanos>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:54:13 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
cc: "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Jeff Law <law@...hat.com>,
Nick Clifton <nickc@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Jon Masters wrote:
> P.S. I've an internal document where I've been tracking "nice to haves"
> for later, and one of them is whether it makes sense to tag binaries as
> "trusted" (e.g. extended attribute, label, whatever). It was something I
> wanted to bring up at some point as potentially worth considering.
Scratch that. There is no such thing as a trusted binary.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists