linux-kernel - Re: [CRIU] [PATCH] Add VDSO time function support for x86 32-bit kernel

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: <50CBACD2.60307@zytor.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:48:50 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
CC:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, aarcange@...hat.com,
	ak@...ux.intel.com, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, criu@...nvz.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	john.stultz@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [CRIU] [PATCH] Add VDSO time function support for x86 32-bit
 kernel

On 12/14/2012 02:43 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:27:08PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 12/14/2012 02:25 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>>>
>>> this would allow us to defer checkpoint until task finish vdso code. Peter,
>>> if I understand you correctly you propose we provide some own proxy-vdso
>>> which would redirect calls to real ones, right? But the main problem
>>> is that is exactly the idea to be able to c/r existing programs without
>>> recompiling and such (or I miss something here?).
>>
>> No, I'm proposing that you use a proxy-vdso which does nothing but
>> system calls, and therefore can be stable indefinitely.
> 
> This won't help in case of scenario you've been pointing in
> previous email (where c/r happens in a middle of vdso),
> would it? Because we still need somehow to be sure we're not
> checkpointing in a middle of signal handler which will return
> to some vdso place.

It is okay if and only if those vdso places never change... which I
think is doable if they only contain trival system call wrappers, i.e.
something like:

	movl $__SYS_gettimeofday, %eax
	syscall
	ret

These kinds of wrappers don't rely on live data provided by the kernel,
and so can be checkpointed together with the rest of the process.

	-hpa


--
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/