From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) References: <1459281207-24377-1-git-send-email-sbauer@eng.utah.edu> <1459281207-24377-2-git-send-email-sbauer@eng.utah.edu> <87wpoie6oj.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:17:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:00:24 -0500") Message-ID: <87oa9ue1gu.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] SROP Mitigation: Architecture independent code for signal cookies To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Scott Bauer , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" , the arch/x86 maintainers , Andi Kleen , Andy Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , wmealing@redhat.com, Abhiram Balasubramanian , Scott Bauer List-ID: Linus Torvalds writes: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Eric W. Biederman > wrote: >> >> I suspect we want this to be a per-mm attribute rather than a per-thread >> attribute. >> >> Otherwise you are breaking anything that uses a N-M threading model. >> Which I suspect means that this implementation choice breaks all go >> programs on linux. > > That sounds like a good point, but wouldn't it make more conceptual > sense to make it part of "struct sighand_struct" instead? > > That is also shared for threads. Good point. Given this is a signal handling feature struct sighand_struct is the natural place to put this. Eric