linux-kernel - Re: [ 027/102] x86, vm86: fix VM86 syscalls: use SYSCALL

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:	Fri, 17 May 2013 23:49:30 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Subject: Re: [ 027/102] x86, vm86: fix VM86 syscalls: use SYSCALL_DEFINEx(...)

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 02:35:42PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 3.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

This is seriously wrong.  For 3.9 you _need_ asmlinkage_protect() in that
thing; by the time when that went into the tree, mainline already had
it generated automatically by SYSCALL_DEFINE, so there was no point in
that part of patch - the switch to SYSCALL_DEFINE alone did the job.
For 3.9 it's very much needed; as the matter of fact, in 3.9 that commit
is a no-op in the form you took.

We can grab all prereqs into 3.9-stable (there's not that much of those),
but that would be much more intrusive than the variant adding explicit
asmlinkage_protect() in those two syscalls.
--
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/