linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86: fix taking DNA during 64bit sigreturn

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:	Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:11:34 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: fix taking DNA during 64bit sigreturn

Andi Kleen wrote:
>> The *real* fix for this is almost certainly to just get rid of the 64-bit 
>> code entirely, and use the 32-bit code as the base for one single unified 
>> setup.
> 
> That would likely break the ABI. x86-64 ABI is completely different here --
> no ibcs, just pure x86 ISA.
> 

Different ABIs clearly have to be handled, but I don't think that is a 
huge deal.  The i387 code overall (not just asm/i387.h) is very 
different, though, and I find it unlikely that a properly unified code 
is going to be ready and working in the 2.6.24 timeframe.  I'm exploring 
if a partial merge with high confidence level is feasible; either way, a 
proper merge for 2.6.25 is probably the right thing.

	-hpa
-
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/