[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAObL_7HFht0rBHkeLqwVRBNR1yn2qJgWsM7Qr2p3w482t3WKpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 16:18:38 -0400
From: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] x86-64: Add CONFIG_UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to feature-removal-schedule
On Tuesday, May 31, 2011, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
>> [...] solution that filters the caller RIP at the generic syscall
>> entry point and checks RCX against the 'expected' SYSCALL
>> instruction address, which is the (per task) vdso-address +
>> constant-offset.
>
> Note that this solution would allow the vsyscall page to be
> 'filtered' to the 3 allowed system calls rather efficiently, via a
> second level check.
>
> This second check does not affect the fastpath, and it could be put
> behind a CONFIG_COMPAT_VSYSCALL deprecation define once glibc does
> not put vsyscall references anywhere - but we could even keep it
> around forever, as this way it's defanged permanently.
I'm confused. Are you thinking about the 32-bit vDSO? I think that
64-bit code puts syscall instructions all over the place.
--Andy
>
> 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