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  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:	Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:14:30 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <>
To:	Zachary Amsden <>
CC:	Rusty Russell <>,
	virtualization <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Roland McGrath <>,
Subject: Re: [patch] paravirt: VDSO page is essential

Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 00:28 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 13:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>> Subject: [patch] paravirt: VDSO page is essential
>>>> From: Ingo Molnar <>
>>>> commit 3bbf54725467d604698721384d858b5983b87e8f disables the VDSO
>>>> for CONFIG_PARAVIRT kernels. This #ifdeffery was a bad change: the
>>>> VDSO is an essential component of Linux, and this change forces all
>>>> of them to use int $0x80 - including sane ones like KVM. (If a
>>>> hypervisor does not handle the VDSO properly then it can work
>>>> things around via the vdso=0 boot option. Or CONFIG_PARAVIRT should
>>>> not have been merged. But in any case, it is a basic taste issue:
>>>> we DO NOT #ifdef around core features like this!)
>>> I agree with the criticism, dislike the snarly comments, and disagree
>>> with this patch.
>> And my patch was pretty crack-induced too.  Sorry.
>> I shouldn't have been thinking about using CONFIG options at all: we
>> should simply disable the vdso if CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO=y when we
>> *actually* reserve top memory.
>> This still need some work (doing that now), but do people like the idea?
>> The current "vdso_disabled" flag merely disabled the ELF note, so it
>> needs to be made a little stronger, to not set up the vdso at all.
> I had just sent this out for internal review...

I think Jan's approach is better if it works (since there's no
compromise), but this is better if you want to get something working in
the near term.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists