kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] [RFC] Implement Trampoline File Descriptor

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200923181136.GA8846@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:11:36 +0200
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com,
	x86@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, David.Laight@...LAB.COM,
	mark.rutland@....com, mic@...ikod.net,
	Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] [RFC] Implement Trampoline File Descriptor

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 04:39:31PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Solar Designer:
> 
> > While I share my opinion here, I don't mean that to block Madhavan's
> > work.  I'd rather defer to people more knowledgeable in current userland
> > and ABI issues/limitations and plans on dealing with those, especially
> > to Florian Weimer.  I haven't seen Florian say anything specific for or
> > against Madhavan's proposal, and I'd like to.  (Have I missed that?)

[...]
> I think it's unnecessary for the libffi use case.
[...]

> I don't know if kernel support could
> make sense in this context, but it would be a completely different
> patch.

Thanks.  Are there currently relevant use cases where the proposed
trampfd would be useful and likely actually made use of by userland -
e.g., specific userland project developers saying they'd use it, or
Madhavan intending to develop and contribute userland patches?

Alexander

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.