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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 00:52:40 -0700 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 45/51] x86: remove 64-byte gap at end of irq stack On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote: > There has been a 64-byte gap at the end of the irq stack for at least 12 > years. It predates git history, and I can't find any good reason for > it. Remove it. What's the worst that could happen? I can't think of any reason this would matter. For that matter, do you have any idea why irq_stack_union is a union or why we insist on sticking it at %gs:0? Sure, the *canary* needs to live at a fixed offset (because GCC is daft, sigh), but I don't see what that has to do with the rest of the IRQ stack. --Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists