linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mpx: Correctly report do_mpx_bt

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:19:01 +0200
From:   Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mpx: Correctly report do_mpx_bt_fault() failures to
 user-space

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 08:45:28AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> How about doing X86_TRAP_PF?  That would at least be consistent with
> SIGBUS, which is probably the closest thing to a generic error code that
> we have.

Correct me if I am wrong, but for SIGBUS this only happens in the
page-fault path, right? And this path is indeed entered on a #PF
exception.

I see no reason to lie to user-space about the trap_nr that caused the
SIGSEGV, especially since user-space software needs to be modified to
make use of MPX, including the signal handler. So there is no risk of
introducing any incompatibility or regression, no?

	Joerg