linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] um: Avoid longjmp/setjmp symbol clashes with libpthread.a

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, 1 Jun 2017 22:44:17 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>
Cc:     Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "open list:USER-MODE LINUX (UML)" 
        <user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        "open list:USER-MODE LINUX (UML)" 
        <user-mode-linux-user@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] um: Avoid longjmp/setjmp symbol clashes with
 libpthread.a

Am 01.06.2017 um 22:40 schrieb Florian Fainelli:
>>> Sure, but that seems orthogonal? In the absence of an answer from Eli,
>>> either you could take my patch or just send reverts of Eli's two
>>> commits, whichever you prefer.
>>
>> Or you and Thomas could investigate. :-)
> 
> Honestly, I don't know what do you want me to investigate, my host
> machine is old (2.6.32) and does not support PTRACE_GETREGSET or
> friends, nor does it have _xstate, so with that, we either don't use
> those period, which would be a revert, or we just conditionally build
> support for that (my patch) and everyone is happy.

This is exactly why we have this mess right now. Everybody is just focusing
on his own stuff.

> I don't know what the issue Thomas is having (he is now CC'd) and I
> still don't understand why you insist on conflating the symbol clash
> while statically linking with support for newer x86 FPU stuff...

The said commits introduced issues, you face some, Thomas is facing some.
I want them to get fixed or at least understood before we apply new patches.

Thanks,
//richard