linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL

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]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFy974z4PQMzSKbvcz02BeyRQTbXxyjw_GgjrXSeAf3wwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 25 Mar 2018 20:20:52 -1000
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        linux-mips <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] new SYSCALL_DEFINE/COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE wrappers

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> HOWEVER.
>
> I didn't actually test any of the compat or x32 ones, and the way I
> did it there also was no type-checking or other automated catching of
> getting it wrong. So it's almost certainly completely buggy, but the
> _intent_ is there and there is a remote possibility that it might even
> work.

Note: the commit message is "broken, but working, ptregs system call
conversion for x86-64".

The "but working" is not because it would be right, but because it
booted a real 64-bit distribution successfully, and I actually used
that kernel.

But that only tests the native 64-bit case, it in no way tests the
compat or x32 cases what-so-ever. That part was literally a "it
compiles - it must be perfect" with absolutely zero testing of even
the most trivial kind.

And it really would have been most trivial to just do a "Hello world"
and build it with "-m32". I didn't do even that, and if I had, I would
have been honestly surprised had it worked.

But there was a _theoretical_ chance that it could have worked. Maybe.

      Linus