linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] status of execve() work - per-architecture patches solicited

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:	Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:32:26 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] status of execve() work - per-architecture patches
 solicited

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 05:50:34PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:

> Hi Al,
> 
> It must be noted that despite having seemingly independent
> __ARCH_WANT_(KERNEL|SYS)_EXECVE, arches which have a kernel syscall trap
> based kernel_execve(), e.g. MIPS, can't implement __ARCH_WANT_SYS_EXECVE
> alone - they need to first convert
> to __ARCH_WANT_KERNEL_EXECVE as well (although it probably doesn't make
> sense for anyone to just implement one - but in terms of staging -
> having only one, breaks stuff IMHO).

Of course - that's the reason for kernel_execve() being pulled into the
mix at all.  Unified sys_execve() relies on not using a trap to do
kernel_execve(); it's not exactly the same thing as having it done
by generic instance in fs/exec.c (e.g. some architectures were already
doing it that way, with their own instances, some in asm glue, some
in C) but it is a prerequisite.
--
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/