linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ftrace: unify arch_syscall

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: <20100122163700.GD6412@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:37:00 +0100
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: unify arch_syscall_addr() implementations

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 09:36:17AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [ Added Heiko Carstens and Paul Mundt to Cc ]
> 
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 08:43 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Every arch_syscall_addr() implementation thus far is the same, so unify
> > them as a default weak in common code so more arches don't have to waste
> > time copying & pasting this simple function.  The Blackfin version is
> > going to be exactly the same.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
> > ---
> > note: only thing that needs double checking is s390 and sparc where they
> > declared the sys_call_table as an array of ints.  considering this table
> > is supposed to be an array of function pointers, this seems like more of
> > a typo to me ...
> 
> I would not be too sure. s390 is very strange, and I would definitely
> want to get an Ack from the arch maintainers first.

It's not a typo. The syscall table on s390 contains always 32 bit pointers
since we know that the address of the function to be called is (way) below
4GB. So this saves us a few bytes.
In addition this makes syscall patching done by some security modules a
bit more difficult, since they would need to store a 64 bit pointer.
That's because we make sure that module addresses are always above 4GB.
--
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/