| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALCETrWKCOBj12cv7LVPOrATKG9UqC1kJbP5SjCYFoXXw=qyLw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:23:01 -0800 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> To: Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> Cc: Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: sigaltstack breaks swapcontext() On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote: > 06.01.2016 22:53, Andy Lutomirski пишет: >> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote: >>> >>> Exactly. >>> Do you think this can be ignored? >>> A man page should then be corrected with EPERM and the >>> above note removed, right? >>> >> I think it can be ignored. I'd go the SS_FORCE route, though, to >> maintain POSIX compliance. > > I think such a flag would be a wrong thing to do. > Allowing only SS_DISABLE (without any new flags) keeps > you still "compatible with posix", and anything beyond > SS_DISABLE in a sighandler is not needed. > > So I think we only have the following options: > 1. Remove the check and forget (if anything, glibc can > add the EPERM check to stay compatible with crap). > 2. Allow only SS_DISABLE. This will mean a large patch, > touching all arches, but the bonus is the compatibility > with posix, that no one needs in this particular case. Why does allowing SS_DISABLE require touching all arches? --Andy -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- 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