[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1105162345110.3078@ionos>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 23:53:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Micro-optimize vclock_gettime
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> writes:
> > Longer term, it would be nice to mark the vsyscall page NX. That
> > involves a few things:
>
> Why NX? What would make sense is to call the VDSO from it.
> The problem is that the vDSO is randomized and there's no good memory
> location to store the pointer to it.
>
> The real reason for all this dance is to have some less non randomized
> code around. What I implemented back then was instead code to patch out
> the SYSCALL in there if not needed to lower the attack surface (not sure
> if that still works though, but that was the idea). For most cases
> (TSC/HPET read) it's not needed.
>
> Checking: someone removed the code meanwhile.
For a damned good reason.
> > And we won't have a
> > syscall instruction sitting at a predictable address.
>
> The easy way to fix this is to just re-add the patching.
If you can address _all_ reasons why it was removed then we might
revisit that issue, but that's going to be an interesting patch.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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