On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Should the completely pointless supervisor_stack[] be removed as well?
> I had a patch to do that but I never sent it.
Might as well.
--Andy
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
Should the completely pointless supervisor_stack[] be removed as well?
I had a patch to do that but I never sent it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majord
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 15:38:29 -0800 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> Yes, exactly.
>>
>> >
>> > Spelling this out in the changelog would be useful for the ignorant and
>> > the forgetful ;)
>>
>> Want a new version, or will you fix it up yourself?
>
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 15:38:29 -0800 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Yes, exactly.
>
> >
> > Spelling this out in the changelog would be useful for the ignorant and
> > the forgetful ;)
>
> Want a new version, or will you fix it up yourself?
>
I think I can work that out.
A couple of linux-next things
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 06:55:01 -0800 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> > Am 11.11.2014 um 03:13 schrieb David Miller:
>> >> From: Andy Lutomirski
>> >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:03:23 -08
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 06:55:01 -0800 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Am 11.11.2014 um 03:13 schrieb David Miller:
> >> From: Andy Lutomirski
> >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:03:23 -0800
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Gleixn
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 11.11.2014 um 03:13 schrieb David Miller:
>> From: Andy Lutomirski
>> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:03:23 -0800
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Gleixner
>>> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
Am 11.11.2014 um 03:13 schrieb David Miller:
> From: Andy Lutomirski
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:03:23 -0800
>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
If an attacker can cause a controlled kernel stack overflow,
ov
From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:03:23 -0800
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>> If an attacker can cause a controlled kernel stack overflow,
>>> overwriting the restart block is a very juicy exploit targ
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> If an attacker can cause a controlled kernel stack overflow,
>> overwriting the restart block is a very juicy exploit target.
>> Moving the restart block to struct task_struct prevents this
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> If an attacker can cause a controlled kernel stack overflow,
> overwriting the restart block is a very juicy exploit target.
> Moving the restart block to struct task_struct prevents this
> exploit.
>
> Note that there are other fields in thread_info
If an attacker can cause a controlled kernel stack overflow,
overwriting the restart block is a very juicy exploit target.
Moving the restart block to struct task_struct prevents this
exploit.
Note that there are other fields in thread_info that are also easy
targets, at least on some architecture
12 matches
Mail list logo