linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] broken TASK_SIZE for ia32

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]

Date:	Mon, 7 May 2012 00:32:34 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	hpa@...or.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] broken TASK_SIZE for ia32_aout

On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 04:32:43PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 11:48:15 -0700
> 
> > I would argue Sparc is not correct here but I am not a Sparc expert.
> 
> I can easily make sparc take on the x86 behavior if things like the
> input layer really need it.

BTW, in related area: take a look at syscall_get_arguments().  AFAICS,
it's rather odd -
#ifdef CONFIG_SPARC64
        if (test_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_32BIT))
                zero_extend = 1;
#endif
bit looks dubious.  What happens when 32bit task makes a 64bit syscall?
Do we really want to drop upper 32 bits of all arguments in the copy we
are building?
--
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/