Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 08:32:26 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Oliver Pinter <oliver.pinter@hardenedbsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>, HardenedBSD Core <core@hardenedbsd.org> Subject: Re: ASLR work into -HEAD ? Message-ID: <CAJ-VmokJW7A%2BFig9q0Whu2y2VyL1ODwY0Lfn0YmWq=RcH=hJTA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1432135200.4153.3.camel@hardenedbsd.org> References: <CAJ-VmomszKm47aLnGWiouUQHvmB8%2BchA=y-q1zvtOwJ7_iqe0g@mail.gmail.com> <1426878339.5550.29.camel@hardenedbsd.org> <A637110F-A865-4924-AB06-13D7DE2631A8@bsdimp.com> <9043388.Uf7dufN8KZ@shawnwebb-laptop> <1432135200.4153.3.camel@hardenedbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert's been busy on a conference presentation. That's happening this week, so I'll poke him about it later in the week and see if he has some more cycles to review things. Thanks! -a On 20 May 2015 at 08:20, Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2015-03-21 at 10:43 -0400, Shawn Webb wrote: >> On Friday, March 20, 2015 03:14:30 PM Warner Losh wrote: >> > > On Mar 20, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 14:17 -0400, Shawn Webb wrote: >> > >> On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 09:28 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >> > >>>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 2:31 PM, Oliver Pinter >> > >>>> <oliver.pinter@hardenedbsd.org> wrote:>>>> >> > >>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org= > >> wrote: >> > >>>>> On 19 March 2015 at 12:56, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >> > >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 12:53 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org= > >> > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Hi, >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Apparently this is done but has stalled: >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D473 >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Does anyone have any strong objections to it landing in the tr= ee >> > >>>>>>> as-is? >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> There=E2=80=99s rather a lot of them specifically spelled out i= n the code >> > >>>>>> review. >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> Many of the earlier ones were kinda blown off, so I=E2=80=99ve = not been >> > >>>>>> inclined >> > >>>>>> to take the time to re-review it. Glancing at it, I see several= minor >> > >>>>>> issues that should be cleaned up. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Cool. Thanks for taking the time to look at it again. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Shawn is in #freebsd on freenode irc, so if you/others want a mo= re >> > >>>>> interactive review then he's there during the day. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Please CC the core@hardenedbsd.org in future please, when you are >> > >>>> talking about this issue. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Adrian: do you able to review the MIPS or ARM part especially or = test >> > >>>> them? >> > >>> >> > >>> Adrian: Do not commit the changes. >> > >>> >> > >>> I=E2=80=99ve gone back and re-read Robert Watson=E2=80=99s rather = long review and it >> > >>> appears that virtually none of that has been addressed. Until it i= s, do >> > >>> not commit it. This code interacts with dangerous parts of the sys= tem, >> > >>> and the default cannot be to just let it in because no one has obj= ected >> > >>> recently. Objections have been made, they have been quantified, th= ey >> > >>> haven=E2=80=99t been answered or acted upon. Until that changes, y= ou can assume >> > >>> the objections remain in place and asking again without fixing the= m >> > >>> isn=E2=80=99t going to change the answer. >> > >>> >> > >>> Warner >> > >> >> > >> Warner, >> > >> >> > >> We've fixed the vast majority of the concerns raised in that review= . To >> > >> say "virtually none of that has been addressed" and "they haven't b= een >> > >> answered or acted upon" is a blatant lie. The fact that there are s= o >> > >> many revisions of the patch is proof. We even made our ASLR >> > >> implementation for FreeBSD less secure by providing a mechanism in >> > >> ptrace() to disable it as requested by a member of the FreeBSD >> > >> Foundation. (This "feature" doesn't exist in HardenedBSD's >> > >> implementation.) If comments like these continue, I will remove the= diff >> > >> from Phabricator and close the BugZilla ticket. FreeBSD can feel fr= ee to >> > >> pull from us, but we won't make any effort to proactively upstream = our >> > >> work. >> > >> >> > >> With that said, I have missed a few of the concerns raised. There's= so >> > >> many comments/concerns in that review that it's easy to miss a few.= I >> > >> will address them tonight and upload a new patch tomorrow. >> > > >> > > I've updated the patch. Is there anything I've missed? >> > >> > I=E2=80=99ve taken a look at the updated patch and see that it address= ed the >> > issues I raised. It almost looks like the update to the review a month >> > ago was the wrong version, since so many more of the original >> > comments appear to be addressed than when I looked. Thanks! >> > >> > Warner >> >> I've updated the patch again. Please let me know if there's anything I'v= e >> missed. Otherwise, I'd love to see this committed in HEAD. :-) >> > > Does anyone have any updates since I last updated the patch over a month > ago? What's needed to get this patch in? > > Thanks, > > Shawn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmokJW7A%2BFig9q0Whu2y2VyL1ODwY0Lfn0YmWq=RcH=hJTA>