[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFycMWxCVY1p8n_D8nGz7Ky35uAmZMWm=zE5LBsqModiBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:37:23 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: Rethinking sigcontext's xfeatures slightly for PKRU's benefit?
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Dave Hansen
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> But, I think it's a small one. Basically, RSP would have to pointing at
> a place which was allowed by protection keys for all of the sigframe
> setup.
Note that the whole "stack is special" is not at all a new issue.
It's the main reason why sigaltstack() and SS_ONSTACK exists. This is
in no way new to PKRU, people have had to handle the issue of
stack-related SIGSEGV faults for a long time.
So any application that uses PKRU and may play games that affects the
stack, will always have to have a separate "safe stack" that it uses
for signal handling. But that is in no way PKRU-specific, it's been
the case for a lot of other memory management faults.
Linus
--
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