linux-kernel - Re: x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a36005b50709180958y33047b46oefd25aa796db2c49@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:58:14 -0700
From:	"Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...il.com>
To:	"Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86_64: vsyscall vs vdso

On 9/17/07, Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com> wrote:
> 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 ?

Nonsense.  All the code which is in the vdso has a real implementation
in libc.  No need to substitute.  The vdso is only there to adjust a
program to the actual environment in which it is executed and not in
which it is built.  Your suggestion would do the latter which is
complete and utter nonsense.
-
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/