Re: [kernel-hardening] [RFC V2 0/6] add more kernel pointer filter options

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:50:51PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:58:50AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 11:06:44AM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > > Version 2 of Greg's patch series with changes made as suggested by comments to V1.
> > > 
> > > Applies on top of Linus' current development tree
> > > 
> > > a8c964eacb21288b2dbfa9d80cee5968a3b8fb21
> > > 
> > > V1 cover letter:
> > > 
> > > Here's a short patch series from Chris Fries and Dave Weinstein that
> > > implements some new restrictions when printing out kernel pointers, as
> > > well as the ability to whitelist kernel pointers where needed.
> > > 
> > > These patches are based on work from William Roberts, and also are
> > > inspired by grsecurity's %pP to specifically whitelist a kernel pointer,
> > > where it is always needed, like the last patch in the series shows, in
> > > the UIO drivers (UIO requires that you know the address, it's a hardware
> > > address, nothing wrong with seeing that...)
> > > 
> > > I haven't done much to this patch series, only forward porting it from
> > > an older kernel release (4.4) and a few minor tweaks. [snip]
> > 
> > Nice!  Thanks for doing this work, looks great to me.  Care to resend
> > the next version as a "real" one (i.e. no RFC)?
> 
> First thing tomorrow!
> 
> Is correct protocol for me to add your Signed-off-by tag to each patch from this RFC? Or is the
> protocol for you to add the tag yourself when the real version is posted? 

You can add my signed-off-by to your new patches, they shouldn't change
much with the exception of:

> I intend splitting one of the patches into two as suggested by Will.

And that's fine to keep my s-o-b for.

thanks for asking,

greg k-h