linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Pass in pt_regs pointer for syscalls that need it

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: <4992E551.4060901@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:48:49 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Pass in pt_regs pointer for syscalls that need
 	it

Tejun Heo wrote:
>> I checked the disassembly of these functions and didn't see this
>> happen on gcc 4.3.0.
> 
> Well, tracking down why run_init_process() is returning 0 with
> -fstack-protector wasn't much of fun.  These breakages are very subtle
> and if we're gonna pass in pointer to pt_regs anyway and thus can
> guarantee such breakage can't happen at no additional cost, I think we
> should do that even if it means slightly more argument fetching in a
> few places.

In addition, if we do that, we can remove the horrible
asmlinkage_protect() thing altogether.

-- 
tejun
--
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/