RE: encrypting swap conversation

[davej@suse.de]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Copeland, Matthew wrote:

> Just a thought, everyone might want to go through the lkml archives and read
> the recent thread on Crypto, since essentially this is entirely being
> rehashed right here.  :)

And people seem to be forgetting the principle that a code AUDIT
does not mean the same thing as "lets add this feature, it'll be more
secure".

In an attempt to steer things back towards the real objective,
a few postings to linux kernel in the last few days have been
made regarding g++ extensions to check things like..

- calls to sleep functions before MOD_INC
- calls to sleep functions after MOD_DEC
- returns with error after MOD_INC should MOD_DEC
- Variables >512 bytes
- Unmatched spin_unlocks() after spin_lock()

If other people on the list can come up with a series of other tests,
this could make for a good 'audit-suite'.

regards,

-- 
Dave.


Kernel-audit:  discussion list for security and the linux kernel
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernel-audit/