linux-kernel - Re: Q: a bogus set_fs(USER_DS) in setup_frame/setup_rt

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: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707170902570.19166@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
cc:	Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: a bogus set_fs(USER_DS) in setup_frame/setup_rt_frame ?



On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I am really puzzled by set_fs(USER_DS) in setup_frame/setup_rt_frame.
> 
> How is it possible that current->addr_limit != USER_DS ? If this _is_
> possible, how can can we trust the result of access_ok() above?

Heh. I think it's entirely historical.

Please realize that the whole reason that function is called "set_fs()" is 
that it literally used to set the %fs segment register, not 
"->addr_limit".

So I think the "set_fs(USER_DS)" is there _only_ to match the other

        regs->xds = __USER_DS;
        regs->xes = __USER_DS;
        regs->xss = __USER_DS;
        regs->xcs = __USER_CS;

things, and never mattered. And now it matters even less, and has been 
copied to all other architectures where it is just totally insane.

		Linus
-
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/