linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i386: always clear bss

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, 04 May 2007 09:22:47 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386: always clear bss

Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> writes:

> BTW, I should have marked this as an RFC comment, rather than an actual
> submission.  We don't need it for .22.
>
>> NAK.  
>>
>> Skipping the segment register load is likely fine.
>> Supporting V!=P at startup_32 is not.
>>   
>
> Why?
>
>> Assuming that we have a stack at startup_32 is not.
>>
>> If you want to figure out where the kernel is loaded you can do
>> (from arch/i386/boot/head.S)
>>   
>
> Yes, that's more or less the same code, aside from using 0x40(%esi) as a
> stack.  Would that be OK here?

Using 0x40 as a stack would be ok.

There are issues with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE and V!=P that I'm not
comfortable with yet, because we can't tell the difference.

Eric
-
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/