On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> If we really get failures, we can do that.
Anyway, it's pushed out now so people can test whatever workflows they have.
As mentioned, I doubt anybody cares. That file is already conditional
on CONFIG_STACKTRACE, and while that may be so
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> Perhaps if there are really tools that parse this
> the [] should be kept the same too.
If we really get failures, we can do that.
But since the width is already different on 32-bit and 64-bit, I
seriously doubt there are any tools that wou
From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 28 November 2017 17:33
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh well, I just did /proc//stack by making it just print 0
> >> unconditionally rather than the hex number.
> >
> > Patch?
>
> Oh, apparently I never pushed out yesterda
On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 09:33 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh well, I just did /proc//stack by making it just print 0
> > > unconditionally rather than the hex number.
> >
> > Patch?
>
> Oh, apparently I never pushed out y
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
>>
>> Oh well, I just did /proc//stack by making it just print 0
>> unconditionally rather than the hex number.
>
> Patch?
Oh, apparently I never pushed out yesterday.
The patch literally just affects the (useless) hex number. So:
c
From: Eric W. Biederman
> Sent: 28 November 2017 06:27
> Linus Torvalds writes:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> So the big remaining ones for me are the /proc//stack (stack
> >> pointers) and the /proc/net/* ones.
> >>
> >> I'm a bit disappointed that t
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> So the big remaining ones for me are the /proc//stack (stack
>> pointers) and the /proc/net/* ones.
>>
>> I'm a bit disappointed that those haven't been fixed already and
>> aren't even in this series..
>
> O
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 04:57:18PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > Linus,
> >
> > I know you are bored of this patch set already and this pits your vast
> > experience against my eight months kernel dev experience ;)
> >
> > I humbly maintain
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So the big remaining ones for me are the /proc//stack (stack
> pointers) and the /proc/net/* ones.
>
> I'm a bit disappointed that those haven't been fixed already and
> aren't even in this series..
Oh well, I just did /proc//stack by mak
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> Linus,
>
> I know you are bored of this patch set already and this pits your vast
> experience against my eight months kernel dev experience ;)
>
> I humbly maintain that hashing %p and suggesting people use %x
> _correctly_ isn't a WIN so
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> Finally, with this patch set in place, we have the added benefit that
> newbies (me) can quietly go around the kernel 'sweeping up' after
> leaking addresses. This as apposed to using a hammer and hashing all
> %p. And if this is deemed to
11 matches
Mail list logo
