Re: Out-of-bounds access in get_wchan (arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c)

Kees Cook writes: > Please note that these bounds checks aren't correct to begin with. Since > a pointer is being dereferenced, the end boundry must be reduced by > sizeof(unsigned long) as well. > > It looks like process_32.c suffers the same problems, too. I can't see the end boundary problem

Re: [ 02/42] TTY: do not update atime/mtime on read/write

Hi, > --- snip snip --- > drivers/tty/pty.c| 3 +++ > drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/pty.c b/drivers/tty/pty.c > index a62798fcc014..59bfaecc4e14 100644 > --- a/drivers/tty/pty.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/pty.c > @@ -68

Re: [ 03/42] TTY: fix atime/mtime regression

Hi, >To revert to the old behaviour while still preventing attackers to >guess the password length, we update the timestamps in one-minute >intervals by this patch. Sorry if I miss something, but isn't this an issue that should be very obviously fixed in user space? Only user space knows whether

Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix AMD K6 indirect call check v2

Hi, >Yeah, I was thinking of asking my old contacts about it but it is simply >not worth it. Those CPUs are on their way to the museum if they're not >there already. I have a perfectly running K6 system (the legendary K6-III I believe), though I am about to have it taken to recycling. If you want