From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:03:23 -0800 > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >>> If an attacker can cause a controlled kernel stack overflow, >>> overwriting the restart block is a very juicy exploit target. >>> Moving the restart block to struct task_struct prevents this >>> exploit. >>> >>> Note that there are other fields in thread_info that are also easy >>> targets, at least on some architectures. >>> >>> It's also a decent simplification, since the restart code is more or >>> less identical on all architectures. >> >> I think that's the most important change. Moving common stuff into >> common code. The side effect of slightly reducing the attack surface >> is nice, but as Al pointed out not really the big win here. > > Having gotten exactly zero feedback from any arch maintainer outside > of x86, am I supposed to pester people further? No objections wrt. sparc and if things break I'll help fix it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
