linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] x86 vdso updates

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: <BANLkTikp6EKPXBAWkLa5tHSScOvaWZYy4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 May 2011 17:10:55 +0200
From:	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] x86 vdso updates

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:51 AM, richard -rw- weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:59 AM, richard -rw- weinberger
>>> <richard.weinberger@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:59 AM, richard -rw- weinberger
>>>>> If this is considered enough of a regression, then I guess we can
>>>>> leave vsyscall64 around for awhile, but it will require extra work in
>>>>> the soon-to-be syscall emulation hack to make sure that UML can still
>>>>> trap the syscall.
>>>>
>>>> As long the time within UML is synchronous with the host everything is
>>>> fine, right?
>>>
>>> I think so.  I haven't used UML in a long time.
>>>
>>>> So, as _last_ choice we could disable the ability to change the time within UML.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO it's not a big deal when getcpu() returns a wrong CPU layout on UML.
>>>>
>>>>> The real solution is to fix glibc to use the vDSO which should avoid
>>>>> this problem entirely.
>>>>
>>
>> Yesterday I had a closer look at 64bit UML.
>> Glibc is always using vsyscalls because 64bit UML does not support the vDSO.
>>
>> On 32bit UML simply scans the ELF auxiliary vector provided by the host to
>> get the address of the vDSO.
>> How can I get this address on a 64bit host?
>
> I believe it's exactly the same.  There's an auxv entry that points to the vDSO.

I don't think so.
See:
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/lk/lk-4.html
Section "Address space randomization".
The demo program finds the vDSO only on x86.

UML uses quite the same method to find it.
arch/um/os-Linux/elf_aux.c

-- 
Thanks,
//richard
--
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/