[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202502190935.FCA10236C8@keescook>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:36:34 -0800
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alyssa.milburn@...el.com,
scott.d.constable@...el.com, joao@...rdrivepizza.com,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, jpoimboe@...nel.org,
jose.marchesi@...cle.com, hjl.tools@...il.com,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, samitolvanen@...gle.com, nathan@...nel.org,
ojeda@...nel.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, mhiramat@...nel.org,
jmill@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] x86/ibt: FineIBT-BHI
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 05:21:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Also note that LKDTM's CFI_FORWARD_PROTO test will do a double splat for
> paranoid in warn/permissive mode, since both the caller and callee hash check
> will fail.
Hah! I will declare that as Working As Intended, though I guess it is a
bit noisy. But given permissive is mainly a debugging feature, I think
this is fine.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists