On Feb 13 2008 17:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 13 Feb 2008 at 8:29, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
>> Is it signed-off-by: pageexec ?
>
>no it isn't, on purpose as i won't give out my real name that the
>DCO requires.
But could still add "Brought-to-attention-by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" or
something like t
On 14 Feb 2008 at 8:30, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> --- linux-x86.q.orig/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> +++ linux-x86.q/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> @@ -166,6 +166,15 @@ static inline void play_dead(void)
> void cpu_idle(void)
> {
> current_thread_info()->status |= TS_POLLING;
> +
> +#ifdef CON
> --- linux-2.6.24.2/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile_642008-01-24
> 23:58:37.0
> +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.24.2-pax/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile_642008-02-13
> 11:36:14.0 +0100
> @@ -42,4 +42,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += early-quirks.o
> obj-y
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > was removed from arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c:__switch_to? that's
> > the only reason i can think of that would trigger this trace.
>
> I hand-ported your fixes [the patch was whitespace damaged] so i'm
> quite sure i got every bit of it - but find
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hm, had to pull it again because it crashed in testing:
>
> i've only tested .24, not .25 so maybe something changed. did you make
> sure that
>
> write_pda(stack_canary, next_p->stack_canary);
>
> was removed from arch/x86/kernel/process_6
* Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > if you're merging this, please do the independent parts really
> > > independenrly. For example, the above is a patch in its own right,
> > > and probably worth doing regardless of anything else.
> >
> > yes. I wanted to have it tested for a bit,
On 13 Feb 2008 at 17:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> hm, had to pull it again because it crashed in testing:
i've only tested .24, not .25 so maybe something changed. did you
make sure that
write_pda(stack_canary, next_p->stack_canary);
was removed from arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c:__switch_to? that
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > if you're merging this, please do the independent parts really
> > independenrly. For example, the above is a patch in its own right, and
> > probably worth doing regardless of any
On 13 Feb 2008 at 8:29, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Is it signed-off-by: pageexec ?
no it isn't, on purpose as i won't give out my real name that the
DCO requires.
> Couldn't that be a problem?
no it couldn't. no employer -> no problem. the little pleasures of life.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:29:00 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > patches to get CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL actually to work (it
> > includes the Makefile patch proposed in this thread already).
> >
> > note that the fix to ACPI is an actual stack
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if you're merging this, please do the independent parts really
> independenrly. For example, the above is a patch in its own right, and
> probably worth doing regardless of anything else.
yes. I wanted to have it tested for a bit, because the lack
Ingo,
if you're merging this, please do the independent parts really
independenrly. For example, the above is a patch in its own right, and
probably worth doing regardless of anything else.
(Same goes for the ACPI parts, I'll bounce that part to Len,
Linus
On Wed, 13
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> patches to get CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL actually to work (it
> includes the Makefile patch proposed in this thread already).
>
> note that the fix to ACPI is an actual stack corruption bug (caught by
> ssp thanks to a lucky stack layout), du
On 12 Feb 2008 at 9:00, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I just read the excellent LWN writeup of the vmsplice security thing, and
> that got me
> wondering why this attack wasn't stopped by the CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> option... because
> it plain should have been...
what makes you think it should h
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:08:18AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:50:12 +0100
> Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Now I realize that certain distros have patched gcc to compensate
> > > for their lack of distro wide CFLAGS, and it's great to work around
>
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:50:12 +0100
Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Now I realize that certain distros have patched gcc to compensate
> > for their lack of distro wide CFLAGS, and it's great to work around
> > that... but would there be a way to NOT disable this for
> > CONFIG_CC_ST
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:00:01AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just read the excellent LWN writeup of the vmsplice security thing, and
> that got me
> wondering why this attack wasn't stopped by the CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> option... because
> it plain should have been...
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
