[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzXEoTyK0Sm-y=6xGmLMWzQiSQ7ELJ2-WL_PrP3r44MSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 11:27:47 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
x86@...nel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] implement SL*B and stack usercopy runtime checks
That patch is entirely insane. No way in hell will that ever get merged.
copy_to/from_user() is some of the most performance-critical code, and
runs a *lot*, often for fairly small structures (ie 'fstat()' etc).
Adding random ad-hoc tests to it is entirely inappropriate. Doing so
unconditionally is insane.
So NAK, NAK, NAK.
If you seriously clean it up (that at a minimum includes things like
making it configurable using some pretty helper function that just
compiles away for all the normal cases, and not writing out
if (!slab_access_ok(to, n) || !stack_access_ok(to, n))
multiple times, for chrissake) it _might_ be acceptable.
But in its current form it's just total crap. It's exactly the kind of
"crazy security people who don't care about anything BUT security"
crap that I refuse to see.
Some balance and sanity.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
