linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] kernel: Support TIF_SYSCALL

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:   Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:15:54 -0400
From:   Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, luto@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        willy@...radead.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        shuah@...nel.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] kernel: Support TIF_SYSCALL_INTERCEPT flag

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 23 2020 at 13:49, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 04:18:26PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>>> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
>>> Yes, we can, and I'm happy to follow up with that as part of my TIF
>>> clean up work, but can we not block the current patchset to be merged
>>> waiting for that, as this already grew a lot from the original feature
>>> submission?
>>
>> In that case, I'd say just add the new TIF flag. The consolidation can
>> come later.
>
> No. This is exactly the wrong order. Cleanup and consolidation have
> precedence over features. I'm tired of 'we'll do that later' songs,
> simply because in the very end I'm going to be the idiot who mops up the
> resulting mess.
>

No problem.  I will follow up with a patchset consolidating those flags
into this syscall_intercept interface I proposed.  I assume there is no
immediate concerns with the consolidation approach itself.

-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi