lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/9] strict user copy checks on x86_64
    Hi Andrew,

    (I don't know who to pick on sorry)

    On 05/12/2011 04:50 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
    > It turns out that strict user copy checks (also known as
    > CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS) isn't actually implemented
    > on x86_64 and thus we aren't catching potential security holes
    > at compile time.
    >
    > This series adds support for strict user copy checks on x86_64
    > and silences all the benign warnings in the x86_64 allyesconfig.
    >
    > The final patch consolidates the config option as its duplicated
    > across mutliple arches. I don't know what tree this series should
    > go through so I tried to send the individual driver patches to the
    > respective maintainers.
    >
    > Stephen Boyd (9):
    > iwlegacy: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
    > iwlwifi: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
    > [SCSI] lpfc: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
    > debugfs: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
    > kprobes: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
    > Bluetooth: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
    > ASoC: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
    > x86: Implement strict user copy checks for x86_64
    > Consolidate CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS

    It looks like 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 got picked up. Should I resend the left
    over patches with appropriate acked-bys and tags? Would it be
    appropriate to push this through your tree?

    --
    Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
    The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-24 23:31    [W:0.056 / U:0.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site