linux-kernel - Re: RELEASE BLOCKER: Linux doesn't follow x86/x86-64 ABI wrt direction flag

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]

Message-ID: <de8d50360803061035w31622950lfc0cdcfb94b8ea34@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:35:13 -0800
From:	"Andrew Pinski" <pinskia@...il.com>
To:	gcc@....gnu.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RELEASE BLOCKER: Linux doesn't follow x86/x86-64 ABI wrt direction flag

On 3/6/08, Jack Lloyd <lloyd@...dombit.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:13:20PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>  > A process can send a signal via kill.  IOW, a malicious process can
>  > *control when the process would be interrupted* in order to get it into
>  > the signal handler with DF=1.
>
>  If the malicious process can send a signal to another process, it
>  could also ptrace() it. Which is more useful, if you wanted to be
>  malicious?

And more to the point, it can happen before GCC 4.3.0.  So why does
GCC have do something that just happens more often now?  I still don't
see why we have to work around a bug in the kernel which could show up
before GCC 4.3.0.

-- Pinski
--
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/