[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKzKAje_gtOQY7ukh67LLqmcWzVQ502V6akAB6ShH3h3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:34:53 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] video: constify geode ops structures
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Emese Revfy wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:50:47 +0000 (GMT)
>> >> Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> wrote:
>> >> > > Actually, it looks like Emese Revfy is going to merge the GCC plugin
>> >> > > constify stuff sooner rather than later so maybe adding all these consts
>> >> > > isn't going to be needed.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there any advantage of const over the plugin? The consts are easy to
>> >> > add.
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I think it's a very good advantage that the plugin constifies automatically
>> >> without regular maintenance (e.g., generate patches with coccinelle,
>> >> send patches to the maintainers every new kernel version). ;)
>> >> But if it doesn't convince you, I did constification by hand (with a coccinelle
>> >> script) some years ago.
>> >> There are too many types that can be const and it took too long to prepare and
>> >> get the maintainers to accept the patches.
>> >> And it never ends as there are always new types that can be const.
>> >
>> > What happens if some structures cannot be made const because there is a
>> > reassignment somewhere? Is there any feedback about the problem?
>>
>> AIUI, for now, we can't make those const (though I would be happy to
>> be corrected). My hope would be to allow reassignment using something
>> like PaX's kernel_open/kernel_close inlines to allow for temporary
>> modification of read-only things (as part of the KERNEXEC feature).
>
> What I was more wondering was whether there is any feedback about the
> situation?
My plan is to help get the PaX constification plugin into the upstream
kernel. We'll know more about the feedback on that when it gets
attempted (hopefully in the coming weeks).
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
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.
