linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] Make vsyscall_gtod

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]

Message-ID: <1391113152.1405.1.camel@wall-e.seibold.net>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jan 2014 21:19:12 +0100
From:	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, Martin.Runge@...de-schwarz.com,
	Andreas.Brief@...de-schwarz.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Make vsyscall_gtod_data handling x86 generic

Am Donnerstag, den 30.01.2014, 11:51 -0800 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net> wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 30.01.2014, 10:05 -0800 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:49 AM,  <stefani@...bold.net> wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/compat.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/compat.h
> >> > index 59c6c40..45ba688 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/compat.h
> >> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/compat.h
> >> > @@ -295,6 +295,10 @@ static inline compat_uptr_t ptr_to_compat(void __user *uptr)
> >> >
> >> >  static inline void __user *arch_compat_alloc_user_space(long len)
> >> >  {
> >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> >> > +       struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(current);
> >> > +       return (void __user *)regs->sp - len;
> >>
> >> Is there some reason this doesn't need to be aligned?
> >>
> >
> > The reason is that this function will not used for 32 bit kernels, but
> > will the header will be included... This prevents an error!
> 
> Then why not just guard the whole function with an ifdef?  Having a
> piece of actual code that's not intended to be used (and might not
> work) seems like a bad idea.
> 

Good point. I will do this in the next version.


--
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/