[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110517080029.GB22093@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:00:29 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
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
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > see if I can persuade Uli to take accept a glibc patch to stop calling it
> > in future static glibc versions.
>
> How wide spread is this in reality on 64bit systems ?
>
> IOW, what's the damage if we take a trap and emulate it in the most painful
> way we can come up with ?
Well, how does that differ from having the real syscall instruction there? How
are we going to filter real (old-)glibc calls from exploits?
If it can be filtered in a meaningful way then we should just do that and
perhaps offer a (default enabled) .config COMPAT_VDSO_EMU=y switch to turn the
emulation off.
That way we keep the ABI and also have a way out for users who *really* need
this to work in a performant way.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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