linux-kernel - Re: [C/R ARM][PATCH 1/3] ARM: Rudimentary syscall interfaces

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003240055050.5867@takamine.ncl.cs.columbia.edu>
Date:	Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
To:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Christoffer Dall <christofferdall@...istofferdall.dk>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [C/R ARM][PATCH 1/3] ARM: Rudimentary syscall interfaces

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Matt Helsley wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 08:53:42PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 09:06:03PM -0400, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > This small commit introduces a global state of system calls for ARM
> > > making it possible for a debugger or checkpointing to gain information
> > > about another process' state with respect to system calls.
> > 
> > I don't particularly like the idea that we always store the syscall
> > number to memory for every system call, whether the stored version is
> > used or not.
> > 
> > Since ARM caches are generally not write allocate, this means mostly
> > write-only variables can have a higher than expected expense.
> > 
> > Is there not some thread flag which can be checked to see if we need to
> > store the syscall number?
> 
> Perhaps before we freeze the task we can save the syscall number on ARM.
> The patches suggest that the signal delivery path -- which the freezer
> utilizes -- has the syscall number already.
> 
> Should work since the threads must be frozen first anyway.

I like the idea.

However, would it also work for those cases when the freezing does not 
occur from the signal delivery path - e.g. for vfork and ptraced tasks ?

Oren.
--
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/