linux-kernel - Re: Why disable vdso by default with CONFIG

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]

Message-ID: <457E0A03.3020704@vmware.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:46:43 -0800
From:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: Why disable vdso by default with CONFIG_PARAVIRT?

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Zachary Amsden wrote:
>   
>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Andi,
>>>
>>> What problem do they cause together?  There's certainly no problem with
>>> Xen+vdso (in fact, its actually very useful so that it picks up the
>>> right libc with Xen-friendly TLS).
>>>   
>>>       
>> Methinks the compat VDSO support got broken in the config?  Paravirt +
>> COMPAT_VDSO are incompatible. 
>>     
>
> Yes, that's true, but I'm looking at arch/i386/kernel/sysenter.c:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> unsigned int __read_mostly vdso_enabled = 0;
> #else
> unsigned int __read_mostly vdso_enabled = 1;
> #endif
>
> I can't think of any reason why that should be necessary.
>   

It's not for us or Xen.  Perhaps it came from lhype?  
-
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/