All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
	Junjie Mao <eternal.n08@gmail.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@imgtec.com>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	lasse.collin@tukaani.org, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
	"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/21] x86, boot: Fix run_size calculation
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 11:00:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160416090025.GB30071@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+3zO=csJuZkYsqCwD3hgCCUfJtUwGnKJZEBmga6hbJhA@mail.gmail.com>


* Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> > So can we rename it to something more expressive, such as kernel_total_size or 
> > so?
> 
> You got it. Thanks again for digging through all this!

You are welcome! A couple of logistical suggestions:

Could you please split up the series a bit and limit the next series to say no 
more than around 5 patches? (Can be a little bit more when justified to finish up 
a particular line of thought) That way I can apply them in reviewable groups, 
without having to reject the whole series because some patch deep into the series 
has some problem.

I'd suggest starting with absolutely critical fixes (if any!) as-is, to make 
backporting easier. By the looks of it I don't think there's any such patch in 
this series, but just in case there are any, they can be at the front.

Then come the various cleanup patches and non-critical fixes - everything that is 
not supposed to change the behavior of the kernel. I'd suggest doing them in 
roughly this order:

 - file renames first - so that any later revert in a smaller patch does not have
   to go through a rename barrier.

 - then .o-invariant trivial cleanups, the fixing, harmonization (and creation ;-)
   of comments.

 - then come more involved cleanups like moving logic from build time to boot
   time, stricter bounds checks, non-essential fixes, etc.

It might be useful if you declared at this stage that you are mostly done with the 
preparatory work and that the code base is ready for heavier changes, so that 
people (and me) can review the whole source for anything missing. Often a car 
needs a good power wash before we can tell what body work is needed.

... and once we are happy and proud about the code base, then come the more 
exciting things: more fundamental changes, and new features - on top of a squeaky 
clean code base.

This all can happen pretty quickly, as long as the ordering is proper.

Thanks,

	Ingo

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
	Junjie Mao <eternal.n08@gmail.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@imgtec.com>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	lasse.collin@tukaani.org, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
	"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
	<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v5 07/21] x86, boot: Fix run_size calculation
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 11:00:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160416090025.GB30071@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+3zO=csJuZkYsqCwD3hgCCUfJtUwGnKJZEBmga6hbJhA@mail.gmail.com>


* Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> > So can we rename it to something more expressive, such as kernel_total_size or 
> > so?
> 
> You got it. Thanks again for digging through all this!

You are welcome! A couple of logistical suggestions:

Could you please split up the series a bit and limit the next series to say no 
more than around 5 patches? (Can be a little bit more when justified to finish up 
a particular line of thought) That way I can apply them in reviewable groups, 
without having to reject the whole series because some patch deep into the series 
has some problem.

I'd suggest starting with absolutely critical fixes (if any!) as-is, to make 
backporting easier. By the looks of it I don't think there's any such patch in 
this series, but just in case there are any, they can be at the front.

Then come the various cleanup patches and non-critical fixes - everything that is 
not supposed to change the behavior of the kernel. I'd suggest doing them in 
roughly this order:

 - file renames first - so that any later revert in a smaller patch does not have
   to go through a rename barrier.

 - then .o-invariant trivial cleanups, the fixing, harmonization (and creation ;-)
   of comments.

 - then come more involved cleanups like moving logic from build time to boot
   time, stricter bounds checks, non-essential fixes, etc.

It might be useful if you declared at this stage that you are mostly done with the 
preparatory work and that the code base is ready for heavier changes, so that 
people (and me) can review the whole source for anything missing. Often a car 
needs a good power wash before we can tell what body work is needed.

... and once we are happy and proud about the code base, then come the more 
exciting things: more fundamental changes, and new features - on top of a squeaky 
clean code base.

This all can happen pretty quickly, as long as the ordering is proper.

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-16  9:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-14 22:28 [PATCH v5 00/21] x86, boot: KASLR cleanup and 64-bit improvements Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:28 ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:28 ` [PATCH v5 01/21] x86, KASLR: Remove unneeded boot_params argument Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:28   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-15  7:29   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15  7:29     ` [kernel-hardening] " Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15 18:55     ` Kees Cook
2016-04-15 18:55       ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:28 ` [PATCH v5 02/21] x86, KASLR: Handle kernel relocation above 2G Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:28   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-15  7:47   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15  7:47     ` [kernel-hardening] " Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15 19:01     ` Kees Cook
2016-04-15 19:01       ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:28 ` [PATCH v5 03/21] x86, KASLR: Drop CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE_MAX_OFFSET Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:28   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-15  8:07   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15  8:07     ` [kernel-hardening] " Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15 19:12     ` Kees Cook
2016-04-15 19:12       ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-16  8:42       ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-16  8:42         ` [kernel-hardening] " Ingo Molnar
2016-04-14 22:28 ` [PATCH v5 04/21] x86, boot: Move compressed kernel to end of decompression buffer Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:28   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-15  8:09   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15  8:09     ` [kernel-hardening] " Ingo Molnar
2016-04-18 16:50     ` Kees Cook
2016-04-18 16:50       ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-15  9:05   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15  9:05     ` [kernel-hardening] " Ingo Molnar
2016-04-14 22:28 ` [PATCH v5 05/21] x86, boot: Calculate decompression size during boot not build Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:28   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-15  8:12   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15  8:12     ` [kernel-hardening] " Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15 19:14     ` Kees Cook
2016-04-15 19:14       ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:28 ` [PATCH v5 06/21] x86, KASLR: Update description for decompressor worst case size Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:28   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-15 16:17   ` Lasse Collin
2016-04-15 16:17     ` [kernel-hardening] " Lasse Collin
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 07/21] x86, boot: Fix run_size calculation Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-15  8:31   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15  8:31     ` [kernel-hardening] " Ingo Molnar
2016-04-15 19:26     ` Kees Cook
2016-04-15 19:26       ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-16  9:00       ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2016-04-16  9:00         ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 08/21] x86, KASLR: Clean up unused code from old run_size Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 09/21] x86, KASLR: Correctly bounds-check relocations Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 10/21] x86, KASLR: Consolidate mem_avoid entries Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 11/21] x86, boot: Split out kernel_ident_mapping_init Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 12/21] x86, 64bit: Set ident_mapping for KASLR Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 13/21] x86, boot: Report overlap failures in memcpy Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-15 14:42   ` Lasse Collin
2016-04-15 14:42     ` [kernel-hardening] " Lasse Collin
2016-04-15 19:28     ` Kees Cook
2016-04-15 19:28       ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 14/21] x86, KASLR: Add slot_area to manage random slots Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 15/21] x86, KASLR: Add slot_area support functions Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 16/21] x86, KASLR: Add virtual address choosing function Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 17/21] x86, KASLR: Clarify purpose of each get_random_long Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 18/21] x86, KASLR: Randomize virtual address separately Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 19/21] x86, KASLR: Add physical address randomization >4G Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 20/21] x86, KASLR: Remove unused slot tracking code Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29 ` [PATCH v5 21/21] x86, KASLR: Allow randomization below load address Kees Cook
2016-04-14 22:29   ` [kernel-hardening] " Kees Cook

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=20160416090025.GB30071@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=eternal.n08@gmail.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=lasse.collin@tukaani.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=matt.redfearn@imgtec.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yinghai@kernel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.