linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH glibc 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at nptl init and thread creation (v4)

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:   Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:50:54 -0500 (EST)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:     carlos <carlos@...hat.com>, Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
        Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
        libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH glibc 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at
 nptl init and thread creation (v4)

----- On Dec 4, 2018, at 2:44 PM, Florian Weimer fweimer@...hat.com wrote:

> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
> 
>> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/rv64/libpthread.abilist
>> b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/rv64/libpthread.abilist
>> index c370fda73d..9da78d59d2 100644
>> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/rv64/libpthread.abilist
>> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/rv64/libpthread.abilist
>> @@ -235,3 +235,4 @@ GLIBC_2.28 tss_create F
>>  GLIBC_2.28 tss_delete F
>>  GLIBC_2.28 tss_get F
>>  GLIBC_2.28 tss_set F
>> +GLIBC_2.29 __rseq_refcount T 0x4
> 
> This part looks buggy.
> 
> It's unclear based on this patch whether you actually want to get rid of
> the __rseq_refcount symbol.

I want to keep the __rseq_refcount symbol so out-of-libc users can
register rseq if they are linked against a pre-2.29 libc.

Why does it look buggy ?

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com