linux-kernel - Re: CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH

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: <20080912224554.61CCB15420D@magilla.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	utrace-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK and you

> > Didn't it also write NT_PRFPREG notes of the wrong size?
> 
> Yep, but gdb was "generous in what it received" and happily
> read the contents.

Ah.  I've always done core sanity checks with:
	1. generate core1 on old kernel
	2. generate core2 on new kernel (identical userland scenario)
	3. eu-readelf -nl core1 > a
	4. eu-readelf -nl core2 > b
	5. diff -u a b
Then you can eyeball any expected drift like SP address randomization,
and be suspicious of all other differences.  (Of course, I also test
that gdb still likes it.)


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/