[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <90a49b4e-7b17-0262-e358-27343549d990@linux.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:18:56 +0300
From: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] gcc-plugin updates for v4.19-rc1
On 15.08.2018 23:56, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> I absolutely refuse to take any hardening patches at all that have
>> BUG() or panic() or similar machine-killing in it.
>
> Okay, mental model adjusted. :) It was only "strong discouraged" until now.
I've just got the insight, how to avoid having BUG_ON() in stackleak_erase().
If 'task_struct.lowest_stack' is corrupted, we can erase once starting from the
stack bottom and reset the 'lowest_stack' value.
>> I care not one whit about the reason for them. In fact, if the reason
>> is stated as "it makes debugging easiler", then I fart in your general
>> direction and call your mother a hamster.
That is plain harassment. I ask to *stop* it!
--
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists