[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvzt+ThLeH2j9A5N1ee4_uYDnF764qdKvLQ2UWgGuCVpfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:23:25 +0200
From: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] fixing the UML failure root cause
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM, richard -rw- weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
>>> What do you think of this approach? If it seems good, I'll finish the
>>> patch and submit it.
>>>
>>> With this patch applied, UML appears to work, but it fills the log with
>>> exploit attempt warnings. Any ideas on what to do about that?
>>>
>>
>> I can confirm that this patch works.
>> And I really like vsyscall=emulate because with that UML can trap vsyscalls. :-)
>
> Are you sure you don't mean vsyscall=native? I suspect that UML can't
> actually trap vsyscalls in emulate mode right now, although that ought
> to be fixable.
>
Doesn't vsyscall_emu_64.S transform any vsyscall into a real syscall?
So UML can trap it.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists