linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] x86 mpx support for 3.19

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: <548901A8.6020805@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:30:00 -0800
From:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] x86 mpx support for 3.19

On 12/10/2014 06:14 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
>> please pull the latest x86-mpx-for-linus git tree from:
>>
>>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git x86-mpx-for-linus
>>
>> This enables support for x86 MPX:
>>
>>   MPX is a new debug feature for bound checking in user space. It
>>   requires kernel support to handle the bound tables and decode the
>>   bound violating instruction in the trap handler.
> 
> I some really dumb questions.
> 
> Given that mpx is both architecture and cpu specific why use prctl?
> I would think arch_prctl would be a much more appropriate place to
> expose this logic.

I actually never considered arch_prctl().  It doesn't seem a bad fit for
any reason, just that I never thought of it and no one suggested it up
to this point.

Is there any *real* advantage to arch_prctl()?  We have some gcc code
that's going to be using these prctls and if we need to change the
interface, we've got to get that code changed too... fast.

> Why don't you have a call to let an application query to see if mpx
> management is enabled?  I am trying to imagine how checkpoint/restart is
> going to be supported for mpx applications.  If I can't even query if
> mpx is enabled I don't have a clue how we could save this state and
> duplicate it in another process on another machine.

You probably need to actually save off the contents of mm->bd_addr
itself.  I guess you can do it along with all the other internals of the
mm that get saved off currently.
--
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/