linux-kernel - Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?

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: <20091028043611.GK7744@basil.fritz.box>
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:36:11 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	andi@...stfloor.org, airlied@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:37:09PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> On sparc64, in order to make debugging easier, we trap any time
> the kernel does a userspace access to a compat task and any
> of the upper 32-bits are non-zero.

Interesting. That definitely means Dave needs a special path.

> > However some architectures need special operations on compat pointers
> > (s390 iirc), but if you don't support those it might be reasonable
> > to not support that.
> 
> s390 has to sign extend all 32-bit compat process pointers when
> processing them in the 64-bit s390 kernel.  I think one other
> architecture has this kind of situation too.

Which other architure? I reviewed all the definitions in tree
and don't see any other than s390 doing magic there.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/