linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/23] all: syscall wrappers: add documentation

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:	Wed, 25 May 2016 13:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ynorov@...iumnetworks.com
Cc:	arnd@...db.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	pinskia@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org, joseph@...esourcery.com,
	christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com,
	bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com, szabolcs.nagy@....com,
	klimov.linux@...il.com, Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com, agraf@...e.de,
	Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com, kilobyte@...band.pl,
	geert@...ux-m68k.org, philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/23] all: syscall wrappers: add documentation

From: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 23:03:27 +0300

> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:30:17PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 03:04:30 +0300
>> 
>> > +To clear that top halves, automatic wrappers are introduced. They clear all
>> > +required registers before passing control to regular syscall handler.
>> 
>> Why have one of these for every single compat system call, rather than
>> simply clearing the top half of all of these registers unconditionally
>> in the 32-bit system call trap before the system call is invoked?
>> 
>> That's what we do on sparc64.
>> 
>> And with that, you only need wrappers for the case where there needs
>> to be proper sign extention of a 32-bit signed argument.
> 
> It was discussed as one of possible solutions. The downside of it is
> that we cannot pass 64-bit types (like off_t) in single register.

Wrappers can be added for the cases where you'd like to do that.

> The other downside is that we clear top halves for every single
> syscall, and it looks excessive. So, from spark64 and s390 approaches
> we choosed second.

It's like 4 cpu cycles even on crappy sparc64 cpus which only dual
issue. :)

And that's a pretty low cost for the benefits if you ask me.