[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210104230426.ygzkhnonys4mtc7z@treble>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 17:07:32 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, George Spelvin <lkml@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bug: further enhance use of CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 03:12:11PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> This continues in applying the CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION tests where
> appropriate, and pulling similar CONFIGs under the same check. Most
> notably, this adds the checks to refcount_t so that system builders can
> Oops their kernels when encountering a potential refcounter attack. (And
> so now the LKDTM tests for refcount issues pass correctly.)
>
> The series depends on the changes in -next made to lib/refcount.c,
> so it might be easiest if this goes through the locking tree...
>
> v2 is a rebase to -next and adjusts to using WARN_ONCE() instead of WARN().
>
> -Kees
>
> v1 was here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/6/720
Ping? Just wondering what ever happened to this 3+ year old series...
--
Josh
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.
