* MegaBrutal wrote:
> Thanks for this patch, and good to see it in mainline!
>
> This actually fixes the problem I reported here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/1/15
>
> I wish it to be backported into the Ubuntu Utopic kernel asap.
We marked the commit Cc: stable, so it ought to be picked
On 02/26/15 at 07:29am, MegaBrutal wrote:
> Thanks for this patch, and good to see it in mainline!
>
> This actually fixes the problem I reported here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/1/15
>
> I wish it to be backported into the Ubuntu Utopic kernel asap.
>
> > This patch works for me. And good
Thanks for this patch, and good to see it in mainline!
This actually fixes the problem I reported here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/1/15
I wish it to be backported into the Ubuntu Utopic kernel asap.
> This patch works for me. And good to see it's being merged. About the
> patch log, I would s
On 01/15/15 at 04:51pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> On 64-bit, relocation is not required unless the load address gets
> changed. Without this, relocations do unexpected things when the kernel
> is above 4G.
This patch works for me. And good to see it's being merged. About the
patch log, I would say reloca
Hi,
Kees Cook wrote:
> This is a reimplementation of Baoquan's "kaslr: check if kernel location is
> changed", which performs the check without needing to change the function
> declaration. This should have exactly the same effect, but I dropped Vivek's
> Ack and Thomas's Test, since it's technica
On 64-bit, relocation is not required unless the load address gets
changed. Without this, relocations do unexpected things when the kernel
is above 4G.
Reported-by: Baoquan He
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
---
This is a reimplementation of Baoquan's "kaslr: check if kernel
6 matches
Mail list logo
