[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289582682.3090.323.camel@Dan>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:24:42 -0500
From: Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, socketcan@...tkopp.net,
kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, urs.thuermann@...kswagen.de,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net, jmorris@...ei.org,
remi.denis-courmont@...ia.com, pekkas@...core.fi, sri@...ibm.com,
vladislav.yasevich@...com, tj@...nel.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
joe@...ches.com, hadi@...atatu.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
adobriyan@...il.com, jpirko@...hat.com, johannes.berg@...el.com,
daniel.lezcano@...e.fr, xemul@...nvz.org,
socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/10] Fix leaking of kernel heap addresses in net/
>
> Also, the whole idea needs to be under a config option, so only
> the paranoid idiots turn it on.
If that's what's necessary to get it accepted, I'm willing to do that.
But when a solution does not negatively impact usability or performance
and improves security, even in a small way, why should it not be enabled
by default? Of course it's my responsibility to first propose a
solution that is acceptable from a usability/debugging standpoint, but
assuming that can be achieved, I don't really see what the problem is.
There's a difference between being a "paranoid idiot" and wanting to
protect users from unnecessary exposure.
-Dan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists