linux-kernel - Re: SYSCALL, ptrace and syscall restart breakages (Re: [RFC] weird crap with vdso on uml/i386)

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

Date:	Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:51:26 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SYSCALL, ptrace and syscall restart breakages (Re: [RFC] weird
 crap with vdso on uml/i386)

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 09:37:18AM -0400, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:

> Gack.  Is this a holdover from the 32-bit code that shares the
> argument save area with the parameters passed on the C stack?  If so,
> we could just set up the argument save area honestly and pass the real
> parameters in registers like 64-bit C code expects.
> 
> If the tracing and restart cases use iret to return to userspace, this
> should all just work.  ptrace users shouldn't notice the overhead, and
> syscall restart is presumably slow enough anyway that it wouldn't
> matter.  The userspace entry code would be as simple as:
> 
> sysenter
> ret
> 
> or
> 
> sysexit
> ret

You are making no sense at all...
--
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/