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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 13:34:09 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Trap WFI executed in userspace On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 11:24:34AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 07/08/18 11:05, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 10:33:26AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> It recently came to light that userspace can execute WFI, and that > >> the arm64 kernel doesn trap this event. This sounds rather benign, Nitpick: "doesn't". > >> but the kernel should decide when it wants to wait for an interrupt, > >> and not userspace. > >> > >> Let's trap WFI and treat it as a way to yield the CPU to another > >> process. [...] > > I can't think of a legitimate reason for userspace to execute WFI > > however. Userspace doesn't have interrupts under Linux, so it makes > > no sense to wait for one. > > > > Have we seen anybody using WFI in userspace? It may be cleaner to > > map this to SIGILL rather than be permissive and regret it later. > > I couldn't find any user, and I'm happy to just send userspace to hell > in that case. But it could also been said that since it was never > prevented, it is a de-facto ABI. I wouldn't really go as far as SIGILL on WFI. I think the patch is fine as it is. In case Will plans to merge it: Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists