|
Message-ID: <CAEXv5_izCpFQ39SGL_CD9J2A5XD1TVNJm8C3S+a3TuyriLcbJQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:03:17 -0400 From: David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com> To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com> Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:59 AM, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com> wrote: > Hi Hans, > > <snip> > >>>Now we are left with local_wrap_t problem still... But it doesn’t concern arm I think at all. >> >> Ok, we managed to address this today finally hopefully in a non-ugly way. At least we are kind of happy with it. >> So, from our side what we do today/tomorrow with Hans: >> >> - finalize coverage on atomic64 and local wrap functions > > Just a general question: in your efforts to expand coverage (not just > with atomic64, but in general), are you adding _wrap() versions for > functions that have existing kernel users, or are you creating, in > some cases, both the _wrap() and protected versions of functions? > >> - add missing tests for atomic64 and local >> - rebase on top of latest linux-next >> - compile test and test run the whole thing in different combinations >> - send rfcv3 with also all atomic maintainers included for wider blame/feedback >> >> Does it sound like a good plan for everyone? >> Actually, it doesn't look like I've updated Documentation/security/hardened-atomic.txt yet. I need to fix the language explaining the x86 race condition to make it clear that we're discussing the SMP case. I also want to add a sentence somewhere (either in your cover letter or in the kernel documentation, or both), referencing the benchmark results and lack of demonstrable performance degradation. >> Best Regards, >> Elena. >>
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.