[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527181829.GC6800@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:18:29 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>, wezhang@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sys_personality: validate personality before
set_personality()
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:51:46AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > But. Suppose an application does personality(0xffffffff << 32) on x86_64.
> >
> > Before this patch we return -EINVAL (but wrongly change ->personality).
> > After this patch this is equal to personality(0), right?
>
> Yes. And I'm willing to take that "risk" in the name of not having to
> carry crazy stuff around in the kernel.
Perhaps we can have a personality with the old personality behaviour @)
Just joking, I doubt anything really cares. I don't think personality
was used much in 64bit except for uname emulation.
-Andi
--
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