linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] allow BFLT executables on systems with a MMU

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:	Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:06:50 +0100
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] allow BFLT executables on systems with a MMU

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:28:13 +1000
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:

> On 22/07/16 00:48, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, Greg Ungerer wrote:  
> >> Hi Nicolas,
> >>
> >> On 21/07/16 05:22, Nicolas Pitre wrote:  
> >>> This series provides the necessary changes to allow "flat" executable
> >>> binaries meant for no-MMU systems to actually run on systems with a MMU.
> >>> Also thrown in are various cleanups to binfmt_flat.c.  
> >>
> >> I got to the bottom of why I couldn't run m68k flat binaries on
> >> an MMU enabled m68k system. I had to fix the regs setup, with the
> >> patch below. With this I can now run flat binaries on my ColdFire
> >> MMU enabled system.  
> > 
> > Excellent!
> >   
> >> This change is completely independent of your patch series so I'll
> >> push this separately via the linux-m68k list and my m68knommu git
> >> tree.  
> > 
> > OK.
> > 
> > Who should merge my patch series at this point?  
> 
> If no-one else wants to carry it I can take it in the m68knommu
> git tree. But I would want to be sure everyone is good with it
> first.
> 
> Alan: are you happy with where this is at?

>From a first glance yes. I don't have time right now to give it a more
detailed audit, but with the correct user accessors it looks as if all
the ways you can mess up relocations simply result in faults or running a
nonsense binary and the userspace failing.

Alan