From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: keescook@google.com
In-Reply-To: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41BDDB97@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <1475476886-26232-1-git-send-email-elena.reshetova@intel.com>
 <1475476886-26232-2-git-send-email-elena.reshetova@intel.com>
 <CAGXu5j+7_cd4GgX46wSMv9LHpogwH7qrU8=K8OPEed4hCGr65g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161012082634.GK19531@linaro.org> <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41BDDB97@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:50:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+X4TkaZN2pQseWKBAjbirF06aUMjGqZ2La3ODGutFf8A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC PATCH 01/13] Add architecture
 independent hardened atomic base
To: "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>
Cc: Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@gmail.com>, David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>
List-ID: <kernel-hardening.lists.openwall.com>

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Reshetova, Elena
<elena.reshetova@intel.com> wrote:
> Yes, same story, now we are not calling it, but things change obviously. We wanted to start somewhere, and this set is already quite big even with the current needs.
> So, does everyone agree that we should provide full coverage?

I think it makes sense. That means no one wanting the function ends up
with a surprise depending on CONFIG selection, etc.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Nexus Security