From: linux@armlinux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH] arm: Always use REFCOUNT_FULL
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 18:47:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180104184741.GR28752@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jKkw7aCN7N8P-UkoFH2xF8Szy-UsL5tJBYUQKaW2a38yA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 10:42:21AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 10:32:46AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 4:28 AM, Jinbum Park <jinb.park7@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > arm prefers to use REFCOUNT_FULL by default.
> >> > This enables it for arm.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Jinbum Park <jinb.park7@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> >
> > I'd help if there was some kind of explanation about this. Not
> > everyone knows what REFCOUNT_FULL is.
> >
> > Also, why does "arm" "prefer" to use this? Where does the preference
> > come from - and why is it a preference but being enforced by the
> > Kconfig ?
>
> This came from discussions with Will Deacon (and others) during the
> Linux Security Summit. The arm64 side of this is in commit
> 4adcec1164de ("arm64: Always use REFCOUNT_FULL"). AIUI, Will said he
> didn't want the specialized "fast but technically incomplete"
> refcounting as seen with x86's fast refcount infrastructure, but
> rather to keep refcounts always fully protected by default because no
> one could point to real-world performance impacts with REFCOUNT_FULL
> vs unprotected atomic_t infrastructure.
>
> I'm fine leaving this choice up to the end user, but I think it makes
> sense to be always-on. If that's no okay, maybe make it default-y for
> arm32, and still let people turn it off if they want?
I'm not really asking for changes.
I'm basically asking for the commit message to do a better job of
explaining this - in years to come, the currently proposed commit
message contains very little information about why this commit exists.
Commit messages need to say what they're doing and why, and not assume
that someone's been to some conference and knows all the inside details
that were discussed there. It's also best to avoid referencing papers -
conferences and their websites come and go, and links break, at which
point information gets lost. If it's all properly explained in the
commit message, then it's there forever.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-04 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-04 12:28 [kernel-hardening] [PATCH] arm: Always use REFCOUNT_FULL Jinbum Park
2018-01-04 18:32 ` Kees Cook
2018-01-04 18:35 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-01-04 18:42 ` Kees Cook
2018-01-04 18:47 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180104184741.GR28752@n2100.armlinux.org.uk \
--to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox