[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44d0ad13-6362-6224-ae64-d1848d217f0b@linux.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:19:26 +0300
From: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Tycho Andersen
<tycho@...ker.com>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] arm64: Clear the stack
On 22.07.2017 03:23, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 07/21/2017 09:56 AM, Alexander Popov wrote:
>> So let's keep it not to break CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK.
>
> That makes sense, good find! I wonder if CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK
> should go on the list of hardening options and/or if we can enhance
> it somehow?
Do you mean this list?
http://www.kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project/Recommended_Settings
> I'm not sure why it requires two words though since the
> poison only seems to be 32-bits?
On x86_64 end_of_stack() returns the pointer to unsigned long, so we need at
least 8 bytes to avoid breaking CONFIG_SCHED_STACK_END_CHECK. Don't know about 8
more bytes.
Best regards,
Alexander
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.
