linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v6 1/5] Thread-local ABI system call: cache CPU number of running thread

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]

Date:	Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:31:58 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>, rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 1/5] Thread-local ABI system call: cache CPU
 number of running thread

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:01:25AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Because ideally this structure would be part of the initial (glibc) TCB
> > with fixed offset etc.
> 
> This is not possible because we have layering violations and code
> assumes it knows the precise of the glibc TCB.  I think Address
> Sanitizer is in this category.  This means we cannot adjust the TCB size
> based on the kernel headers used to compile glibc, and there will have
> to be some indirection.

So with the proposed fixed sized object it would work, right?

Which is part of the reason its being proposed as a fixed sized object.