linux-kernel - Re: X32 psABI status

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:33:25 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	x32-abi@...glegroups.com, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	GCC Development <gcc@....gnu.org>,
	GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: X32 psABI status

> The actual idea is to use the i386 compat ABI for memory layout, but
> with a 64-bit register convention.  That means that system calls that
> don't make references to memory structures can simply use the 64-bit
> system calls, otherwise we're planning to reuse the i386 compat system
> calls, but invoke them via the syscall instruction (which requires a new
> system call table) and to pass 64-bit arguments in single registers.

Who actually needs this new extra API - whats the justification for
everyone having more crud dumping their kernels, more syscall paths
(which are one of the most security critical areas) and the like.

What are the benchmark numbers to justify this versus just using the
existing kernel interfaces ?

Alan
--
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/