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]

Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:12:22 +0300
From:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	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

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 11:56:28AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > 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.

I know. What about adding both personality() and flag for shmat()? I can
prepare patch that implement flag for shmat().

-- 
Regards,  Kirill A. Shutemov
 + Belarus, Minsk
 + ALT Linux Team, http://www.altlinux.com/

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)