[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47B432CA.28524.E15DB6A@pageexec.freemail.hu>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:23:38 +0200
From: pageexec@...email.hu
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: vmsplice exploits, stack protector and Makefiles
On 14 Feb 2008 at 8:30, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> --- linux-x86.q.orig/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> +++ linux-x86.q/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> @@ -166,6 +166,15 @@ static inline void play_dead(void)
> void cpu_idle(void)
> {
> current_thread_info()->status |= TS_POLLING;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> + /*
> + * If we're the non-boot CPU, nothing set the PDA stack
> + * canary up for us. This is as good a place as any for
> + * doing that.
> + */
> + write_pda(stack_canary, current->stack_canary);
> +#endif
i wonder if these #ifdef's are really needed at all, even if one doesn't
use -fstack-protector, having the code set up the canary has like 0
performance impact. not to mention that i think the change in switch_to
means that it won't compile without CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR enabled and
instead of making that macro conditional it's just a lot easier to enable
the canary all the time.
--
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