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  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:	Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:03:24 +0100
From:	Stefani Seibold <>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Peter Anvin <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Andreas Brief <>,
	Martin Runge <>
Subject: Re: [x86, vdso] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at

Am Montag, den 10.03.2014, 10:12 -0700 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 10, 2014 8:01 AM, "H. Peter Anvin" <> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have mentioned in the past wanting to move the fixmap to the low part
> >> of the kernel space, because the top isn't really fixed...
> >
> > How about the high part of the user address space, just above the stack?
> > Leave a unmapped page in between, or something. The stack is already
> > randomized, isn't it?
> For the !compat_vdso case, I don't like it -- this will put the vdso
> (which is executable) at a constant offset from the stack, which will
> make it much easier to use the vdso to defeat ASLR.
> For the compat_vdso case, this only works if the address is *not*
> random, unless we're going to start giving each process its very own
> relocated vdso.
> >
> > That would actually be preferable in a few ways, notably not having to mark
> > page directories user accessible in the kennel space area.
> Is that where the rabid pte dogs live?
> We can already avoid making fixmap pages user-accessible in the
> !compat_vdso case for 32-bit tasks -- the vdso lives in a couple of
> more-or-less ordinary vmas.

What is now the next step? Kick out the compat VDSO? Or should i
implement the dual VDSO. And what is now the preferred way to map the
VDSO into the user space? Using install_special_mapping() or map it
beyond the user stack?

The is easiest and fastest way to get a working result is to do the non
compat VDSO only mapping using install_special_mapping(). The dual VDSO
would take a little bit more time.

It would be great to have first a consensus about the design before i
start to implement ;-)

- Stefani

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists