[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <557D7878.5000105@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:50:00 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/asm/entry/32, selftests: Add test_syscall_vdso
test
On 06/13/2015 08:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> The test is fairly simplistic: it checks that all registers
>> are preserved across 32-bit syscall via VDSO.
>>
>> Run-tested:
>>
>> $ ./test_syscall_vdso_32
>> [RUN] Executing 6-argument 32-bit syscall via VDSO
>> [Ok] Arguments are preserved across syscall
>> [RUN] Executing 6-argument 32-bit syscall via INT 80
>> [Ok] Arguments are preserved across syscall
>> [RUN] Running tests under ptrace
>> [RUN] Executing 6-argument 32-bit syscall via VDSO
>> [Ok] Arguments are preserved across syscall
>> [RUN] Executing 6-argument 32-bit syscall via INT 80
>> [Ok] Arguments are preserved across syscall
>
> Just curious: is there a kernel sha1 where this test would fail? Or did you try to
> provoke an information leak perhaps?
I did see failures, more than once, when testing my own patches.
I'm not aware of released kernels which are buggy wrt this test.
--
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