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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:27:24 -0700 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM? On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote: > On 08/14/2015 12:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Linus Torvalds >>> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Linus Torvalds >>>> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Does the attached patch make sense and work? >>>> >>>> Btw, I'm not all that happy with it anyway. >>>> >>>> I still think Denys' patch also potentially changed what audit and >>>> strace see for %rax in the pt_regs to -ENOSYS, which I'm not convinced >>>> is a good change. >>>> >>>> But maybe that three-liner patch fixes the immediate problem that >>>> David sees. David? >>> >>> Your patch fixes it for me. The seccomp compat selftests pass again >>> with audit enabled. >> >> Kees, would it be straightforward to rig up the seccomp tests to >> automatically test compat? The x86 selftests automatically test both >> native and compat, and that might be usable as a model. I did that >> because it's extremely easy to regress one and not the other. > > BTW, why 64-bt code doesn't need this RAX read-back? > It's hiding inside of RESTORE_C_REGS_EXCEPT_RCX_R11. --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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists