linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] rslib: Remove VLAs by setting upper bound on nroots

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803281210040.3247@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:10:52 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rslib: Remove VLAs by setting upper bound on nroots

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> > > I guess if we put this storage into the rs_control (rather than on the
> > > stack) then we'd have to worry about concurrent uses of it.  It looks
> > > like all the other fields are immutable once it's set up so there might
> > > be such users.  In fact, I suspect there are...
> > 
> > Exactly. :( This is the same conclusion tglx and I came to.
> 
> I think we can lift that and just let all users set up a new rs_control
> from scratch. Takes some time to init the tables, but ....

Bah, no. dm-verity really wants to share them.....