linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Implement personality ADDR_LIMIT

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: <20081006095628.GE3180@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:56:28 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Implement personality ADDR_LIMIT_32BIT

> > And personality() is not thread local/safe, so it's not a particularly
> > good interface to use later.
> 
> qemu can call personality() before any threads will be created.

It still makes it unsuitable for a lot of other applications.
e.g. a JVM using 32bit pointers couldn't use it because it would
affect native C threads running in the same process.

> 
> > Per system call switches are preferable
> > and more flexible.
> 
> Per syscall switches are cool, but I don't see any advantage from it for 
> qemu.

Linux interfaces are not supposed to be "interfaces for qemu" but generally
applicable interfaces.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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/