linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] elf loader support for auxvec base platform string

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:	Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:00:38 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
Cc:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] elf loader support for auxvec base platform string

On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 17:17 -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 19:19 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > Why not just use ELF_HWCAP for this?  It looks like powerpc only has 3 bits
> > > left there (keeping it to 32), but 3 is not 0.  If not that, why not use
> > > dsocaps?  That is, some magic in the vDSO, which glibc already supports on
> > > all machines where it uses the vDSO.  (For how it works, see the use in
> > > arch/x86/vdso/vdso32/note.S for CONFIG_XEN.)
> > 
> > Well, we use strings to represent the platforms already (ie, the actual
> > CPU microarchitecture). Fitting those into bits would be annoying, it
> > makes sense to have AT_BASE_PLATFORM to be the "base" variant of
> > AT_PLATFORM.
> > 
> > _However_ there is a bug in that this patch adds an entry without
> > bumping the number of entries in the cached array (ie.
> > AT_VECTOR_SIZE_BASE needs to be updated).
> 
> Ugh, yes.  I was hoping to work this in such a way that AT_VECTOR_SIZE
> (and thus the size of mm_struct) increases only for architectures that
> implement AT_BASE_PLATFORM... would it be wrong to account for it in
> AT_VECTOR_SIZE_ARCH?

Yes. The later is for things added from ARCH_DLINFO. Since the
code for AT_BASE_PLATFORM is in the generic binfmt_elf, it would
be asking for trouble to not account for it in the base AT_VECTOR_SIZE.

Ben.


--
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/