[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLbWT62xHk1jVCeo8nrqCj9ECSqGpEFWKXP6qd5jxiRpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:14:14 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/pkeys: copy pkey state at fork()
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> On 10/26/18 12:51 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> ...
>> The result is that, after a fork(), the child's pkey state ends up
>> looking like it does after an execve(), which is totally wrong. pkeys
>> that are already allocated can be allocated again, for instance.
>
> One thing I omitted. This was very nicely discovered and reported by
> danielmicay@...il.com. Thanks, Daniel!
Thread ping. Is there a v2 of this, or can this go in as-is? Looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists