| 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: <20080227073821.0C34C2700FD@magilla.localdomain> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:38:21 -0800 (PST) From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tomasz Grobelny <tomasz@...belny.oswiecenia.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 tls prevent_tail_call > i'm wondering, have you seen this happen in practice? We use > sys_set_thread_area() for every new task started up. I guess we havent > seen problems in the field yet because this early during startup tasks > do not normally receive signals? (or if they do they are fatal and no > user signal context is used.) Tomasz saw it. I don't know what compiler or exact options to it he used. > btw., this whole thing of us having to notice such tail-optimization > incidents is totally fragile and unreliable. Shouldnt there be a "dont > tail-optimize me" attribute which we could stick into asmlinkage? I agree. It's come up before. I'll talk to compiler folks about it again. > Perhaps sparse could detect asmlinkage functions that do not do > prevent_tail_call()s? That sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks, Roland -- 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