linux-kernel - Re: [microblaze-linux] [RESEND PATCH] microblaze: Fix clone 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:	Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:16:03 +0200
From:	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>
To:	Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
CC:	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	dholsgrove@...inx.com, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [microblaze-linux] [RESEND PATCH] microblaze: Fix clone syscall

On 07/24/2013 08:59 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:48:27AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>> Create new CLONE_BACKWARDS3 type where stack_size is passed
>>>> via 3rd argument, parent thread id pointer via 4th,
>>>> child thread id pointer via 5th and tls value as 6th
>>>> argument
>>>
>>> I believe this also affects us in musl. What is the motivation for
>>> making a configure option that results in there being two incompatible
>>> syscall ABIs for the same arch?
>>> This sounds like a really bad idea...
>>
>> This patch fixes bug which was introduced by Al's patch where he moved
>> clone implementation from microblaze folder to generic location.
>> It means I am not creating two incompatible syscalls ABIs but fixing
>> broken one.
> 
> So this patch is just fixing a regression in the kernel?

yes.


>>> And how was glibc successfuly using a form that mismatched the
>>> existing kernel? Did nobody ever use/test it?
>>
>> We are running LTP syscall tests and there is not LTP test which
>> was able to find out this mismatch in clone. That's why I haven't
>> figure it out at that time and ACKed that origin patch.
> 
> I would think pthread_create would have broken pretty badly; I
> remember early-on in porting musl to microblaze, we had the clone
> arguments misordered, and it blew up badly. ;) Perhaps you could just
> run some general libc/libpthread level tests to catch things like this
> that are hard to measure at the syscall-test level with existing
> tests.

David was running glibc tests and I was also running some pthreads tests
but we have seen the problem only on timer_create tests we have got from
customer.
I found that we should maybe invest our time to open posix testsuite
to get another set of tests we should run.

BTW: Where to get musl package and are there any tests we should regularly run?

Thanks,
Michal

-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (264 bytes)