On 8/11/26 17:18, Jan Sebastian Götte wrote: > On 8/11/26 17:14, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: >> On 8/11/26 17:05, Jan Sebastian Götte wrote: >>> >>> I'm aware nobody is really using secretmem. I decided to build this on top >>> of >>> secretmem because it's an existing API that actually kind of fits the use >>> case. >>> While I could have added a new API just for this (marking userspace memory >>> as >>> wipe-on-crash), making it part of secretmem instead gives some additional >>> defense-in-depth protection for both users who only need wiping, and for >>> users >>> who only want secretmem's additional protection against kernel memory read >>> primitives so I think everyone wins here. >> >> What I was thinking when I looked at patch #3+#4: 50% of the users you add >> are >> irrelevant in practice. >> >> Or are you saying that you are going to start using secretmem for your use >> case? > > I'm in fact going to start using secretmem.
Okay, thanks for clarifying! -- Cheers, David
