| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <38b2ab8a0709171331s4cb302c3g5d0a4214981a2980@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:31:50 +0200 From: "Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@...il.com> To: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso On 9/16/07, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com> wrote: > On 9/16/07, Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com> wrote: > > Another question: is vdso going to replace vsyscall at all ? If so how It's weird, because it seems that vsyscalls are only done by x86_64, all others archs have only vdso... so they seem to forget about statically linked apps... > > are statically programs going to be handled ? > > Unfortunately the vsyscalls cannot ever go completely away. > Statically linked apps, the bane of progress, will need them. Actually if we could easily retrieve the vdso in a process memory mapping (through a new syscall or /proc/self/maps), it should be easy for gcc/ld to statically links vdso functions into a statically linked app, shouldn't it ? -- Francis - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists