linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86-64: fix vclock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 14 May 2009 16:27:40 +0200
From:	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-x86_64@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, zwane@....linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86-64: fix vclock_gettime()

Andi Kleen píše v Čt 14. 05. 2009 v 16:02 +0200:
> > Sorry, this doesn't work, because the function is inlined. And even if
> > it wasn't, the vDSO must be self-contained by definition. User-space
> > cannot simply call into kernel-space.
> 
> Wrong, it can call into vsyscall space.

Ah, yes, you're right. The vsyscall is always mapped and it is a special
case for the instruction replacement code already.

So, is there any reason not to put the rdtsc_barrier() around
vget_cycles() in vread_tsc() ?

Petr Tesarik


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/