[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <538658EE.8030809@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 14:45:18 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Marian Marinov <mm@...com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Pondering per-process vsyscall disablement
On 05/23/2014 09:40 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> I don't think this should be something configured by the
> administrator, unless the administrator is the builder of a kiosky
> thing like Chromium OS. In that case, the administrator can use
> vsyscall=none.
>
> I think this should be handled by either libc or the toolchain, hence
> the suggestions of a syscall or an ELF header.
>
We could mimic the NX stack stuff, but it would have a lot of false
negatives, simply because very few things would actually poke at the
vsyscall page.
The NX stuff uses a dummy program header in the ELF image.
On the other hand, you could make the argument that anything compiled
with a new toolchain simply should not use the vsyscall page, and just
unconditionally set the opt-out bit (header) in question.
It might be better to have some kind of flags field (which a number of
architectures use) than keep using dummy program headers, though.
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists