linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86: unify sys

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:	Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:22:27 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86: unify sys_iopl

On 09/25/09 16:54, Brian Gerst wrote:
> Using task_pt_regs is less effecient than getting the pointer directly
> from the syscall entry code.

(really not an issue in this case)

>   On 32-bit it probably doesn't matter too
> much, but on 64-bit, you still need the special stub code in
> entry_64.S to put the full pt_regs struct on the stack.  Changing the
> calling conventions should be a seperate patch, and should be done for
> all pt_regs-using syscalls.
>   

iopl only really cares about [er]flags, so it probably doesn't need a
full ptregs structure anyway.  But I'm not sure what changes you'd
consider for the rest of the ptregs calls; sigaltstack probably doesn't
need full ptregs either (it just updates [er]sp I think), but fork/clone
definitely do.

    J
--
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/