linux-kernel - Re: remove the last set_fs() in common code, and remove it for x86 and powerpc v3

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 15:36:29 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, x86@...nel.org,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: remove the last set_fs() in common code, and remove it for x86
 and powerpc v3

On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 04:30:03PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 03:28:03PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 04:22:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 
> > > Besides x86 and powerpc I plan to eventually convert all other
> > > architectures, although this will be a slow process, starting with the
> > > easier ones once the infrastructure is merged.  The process to convert
> > > architectures is roughtly:
> > > 
> > >  (1) ensure there is no set_fs(KERNEL_DS) left in arch specific code
> > >  (2) implement __get_kernel_nofault and __put_kernel_nofault
> > >  (3) remove the arch specific address limitation functionality
> > 
> > The one to really watch out for is sparc; I have something in that
> > direction, will resurrect as soon as I'm done with eventpoll analysis...
> > 
> > I can live with this series; do you want that in vfs.git#for-next?
> 
> Either that or a separate tree is fine with me.  It would be good to
> eventually have a non-rebased stable tree so that other arch trees
> can work from it, though.

FWIW, vfs.git#for-next is always a merge of independent branches; I don't
put stuff directly into #for-next - too easy to lose that way.

IOW, that would be something like #base.set_fs, included into #for-next
merge set.  And I've no problem with never-rebased branches...

Where in the mainline are the most recent prereqs of this series?