From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 10:58:50 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20171004085850.GH28247@kroah.com>
References: <1506816410-10230-1-git-send-email-me@tobin.cc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1506816410-10230-1-git-send-email-me@tobin.cc>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [RFC V2 0/6] add more kernel pointer filter
 options
To: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk>, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, William Roberts <william.c.roberts@intel.com>, Chris Fries <cfries@google.com>, Dave Weinstein <olorin@google.com>
List-ID: <kernel-hardening.lists.openwall.com>

On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 11:06:44AM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> Version 2 of Greg's patch series with changes made as suggested by comments to V1.
> 
> Applies on top of Linus' current development tree
> 
> a8c964eacb21288b2dbfa9d80cee5968a3b8fb21
> 
> V1 cover letter:
> 
> Here's a short patch series from Chris Fries and Dave Weinstein that
> implements some new restrictions when printing out kernel pointers, as
> well as the ability to whitelist kernel pointers where needed.
> 
> These patches are based on work from William Roberts, and also are
> inspired by grsecurity's %pP to specifically whitelist a kernel pointer,
> where it is always needed, like the last patch in the series shows, in
> the UIO drivers (UIO requires that you know the address, it's a hardware
> address, nothing wrong with seeing that...)
> 
> I haven't done much to this patch series, only forward porting it from
> an older kernel release (4.4) and a few minor tweaks. [snip]

Nice!  Thanks for doing this work, looks great to me.  Care to resend
the next version as a "real" one (i.e. no RFC)?

thanks,

greg k-h