linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] UML: don't discard .text.exit section

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:   Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:48:55 +0300
From:   Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
CC:     Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        user-mode-linux-devel <user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stefan Traby <stefan@...lo-penguin.com>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UML: don't discard .text.exit section

On 08/19/2016 03:14 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Andrey Ryabinin
> <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for delays, I am travelling.
>>> Do we need ".fini_array" section? It's also destructors that we don't
>>> run. Or does UML use them? Does discarding ".fini_array" help?
>>>
>>
>> libc has desctructors and use them for whatever purpose it needs.
> 
> 
> Does UML actually gracefully exit running global destructors? That
> would also require gracefully shutting down all threads/cpus. Doesn't
> it just _exit (or syscall(SYS_exit_group))?
> 

Sigh, I dunno, I didn't look that far. My intention was to fix build and keep old behavior unaffected.
If you want to wipe destructors, and think that this is ok, go ahead.