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: <20090211145848.GC10525@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:58:48 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Pass in pt_regs pointer for syscalls that
	need it


* Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:

> 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.

Agreed.

	Ingo
--
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/