From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:31:59 +0300 From: Hans Liljestrand Message-ID: <20161013143159.GA3525@thigreal> References: <1475476886-26232-1-git-send-email-elena.reshetova@intel.com> <1475476886-26232-2-git-send-email-elena.reshetova@intel.com> <20161012082634.GK19531@linaro.org> <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41BDDB97@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC PATCH 01/13] Add architecture independent hardened atomic base To: Kees Cook Cc: "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" , David Windsor List-ID: On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:50:12PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Reshetova, Elena > wrote: > > Yes, same story, now we are not calling it, but things change obviously. We wanted to start somewhere, and this set is already quite big even with the current needs. > > So, does everyone agree that we should provide full coverage? > > I think it makes sense. That means no one wanting the function ends up > with a surprise depending on CONFIG selection, etc. > Yes, sounds reasonable, I will get started on this tomorrow. Once I get that sorted I'll also check on our lkdtm coverage, since I'm pretty sure it's somewhat spotty even before any new implementations. Best Regards, -hans