[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091020061415.GD8550@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:14:15 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, stable@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Withdraw: [PATCH] x86-64: fix another kernel data leak to
32-bit processes
* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com> wrote:
> >Unfortunately I didn't realize that the other instances of branches
> >to int_ret_from_sys_call also need fixing when preparing the previous
> >similar patch. The issue fixed here was in fact introduced by an
> >earlier patch of mine (295286a89107c353b9677bc604361c537fd6a1c0, i.e.
> >in 2.6.28, but through stable now also present in 2.6.27), making
> >kernel stack contents potentially visible through R8...R11 when an
> >this or earlier syscall got interrupted prior to the handler being
> >able to decrement the stack pointer (such that the space normally
> >used by those registers within pt_regs would get overwritten by the
> >interrupt handler stub).
>
> That analysis wasn't right after all - there's a CLEAR_RREGS in each
> of the modified paths already, so the change is unnecessary (and
> adding redundant code). Please don't apply it.
>
> >While touching the code, I also swapped the branch pairs so that the
> >static branch prediction logic would consider the syscall-number-in-
> >range case the taken path.
>
> If this would seem a worthwhile change, I can re-send it as a
> separate, lower priority patch...
Please do - thanks!
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists