linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.19 3/3] x86, mpx: Change the MPX enable/disable API to arch

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: <CALCETrUeMS7zwjXfSMN-6A8-gpLc68n7U5Y6SPdzgw6hSbYGNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 5 Jan 2015 15:04:53 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.19 3/3] x86, mpx: Change the MPX enable/disable API to arch_prctl

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 01/05/2015 12:42 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> writes:
>>> On 12/29/2014 04:52 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> This has the benefit the it avoids cluttering prctl with more
>>>> arch-specific functionality.  The down side is that arch_prctl will
>>>> need to be wired up as a 32-bit syscall to add 32-bit support for
>>>> MPX.
>>>
>>> There is existing userspace out there which depends on the existing
>>> prctl() setup.  There isn't a _lot_ and it might still be able to be
>>> changed easily, but this isn't a given.
>>>
>>> I'll check in with the folks doing the gcc (runtime) part of this next
>>> week and see what they think.
>>
>> It'll be quite messy for 32bit because they would need to use syscall(),
>> as glibc won't have a arch_prctl stub.

We should avoid arch_prctl because glibc won't add a syscall stub that
libgcc or whatever would want?  My mind boggles.

>
> Yeah, I'd _really_ prefer not to change it.  The code is in a gcc
> branch, but is getting pulled in to the 5.0 release.  We've got
> *absolutely* no shortage of prctl numbers.

We do, however, have a severe shortage of sanity in the prctl implementation.

Anyway, if it's actually a problem to change it, I have no real
problem keeping it, but I think we *really* need to validate the rest
of the arguments at the very least.

--Andy
--
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/