[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJyvDr=Vxv9Ocjtk2DF9ONAKjDhdiQGb-X-1RV9=SRWRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:43:37 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Michael Leibowitz <michael.leibowitz@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] task_struct: Allow randomized layout
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 14:18 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> One question about formatting remains: should this patch indent all
>> the
>> randomized fields, due to the added anonymous struct, which would
>> make
>> this patch white-space huge, or should I leave the indentation level
>> alone, to avoid massive churn? I opted for making the patch more
>> readable, but can easily do the indentation...
>
> It may make sense to do the indentation in a separate
> patch, for readability reasons.
Ah, yeah, that makes sense. I'll do three phases: the sigset_t
anonymous struct, then the non-indent-changing randomizable anon
struct, then all the whitespace...
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel 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.
