Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] SROP Mitigation: Sigreturn Cookies
From: Daniel Micay
Date: Tue Mar 29 2016 - 18:55:24 EST
> Then there's an unanswered question: is this patch acceptable given
> that it's an ABI break?ÂÂSecurity fixes are sometimes an exception to
> the "no ABI breaks" rule, but it's by no means an automatic exception.
It seems this could be worked around in general. Processes can have a
bit tracking whether this is enabled, and CRIU can save/restore it. It
would just leave it off for resuming old saved processes.
Should CRIU really be covered by the kernel's ABI guarantee though? It
seems like this was meant to be extensible, so it's adding an extra ABI
guarantee that wasn't there before. It makes sense to freeze this ABI
for CRIU, but a version field should be added first in one final ABI
break if it's not too late.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part