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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20120506.193814.2029338625165610372.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2012 19:38:14 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
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

From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 00:32:34 +0100

> 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?

I basically never intended to support 32-bit tasks making 64-bit
system calls except in extremely limited situations such as ptrace()
so that a 32-bit gdb could debug 64-bit tasks.

Do we really have to support crap like this?
--
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/