[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161006135612.GA21342@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 06:56:12 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: introduce kptr_restrict level 3
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 01:47:47PM +0000, Roberts, William C wrote:
> Out of tree modules still affect core kernel security.
So don't use them.
> I would also bet money, that somewhere
> In-tree someone has put a %p when they wanted a %pK.
So fix them.
> So this method is just quite error
> prone. We currently have a blacklist approach versus whitelist.
Or fix the entire thing, get rid of %pK and always protect %p if you
can show that it doesn't break anything.
But stop posting patches with bullshit arguments like out of tree
modules.
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.
