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  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:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:06:45 +0200
From:   Florian Weimer <>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <>
Cc:     carlos <>, Joseph Myers <>,
        Szabolcs Nagy <>,
        libc-alpha <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ben Maurer <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Boqun Feng <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Dave Watson <>, Paul Turner <>,
        Rich Felker <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        linux-api <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v10)

* Mathieu Desnoyers:

> ----- On Jun 12, 2019, at 4:00 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Jun 10, 2019, at 4:43 PM, carlos wrote:
>>> On 6/6/19 7:57 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> Let me ask the key question again: Does it matter if code observes the
>>>> rseq area first without kernel support, and then with kernel support?
>>>> If we don't expect any problems immediately, we do not need to worry
>>>> much about the constructor ordering right now.  I expect that over time,
>>>> fixing this properly will become easier.
>>> I just wanted to chime in and say that splitting this into:
>>> * Ownership (__rseq_handled)
>>> * Initialization (__rseq_abi)
>>> Makes sense to me.
>>> I agree we need an answer to this question of ownership but not yet
>>> initialized, to owned and initialized.
>>> I like the idea of having __rseq_handled in
>> Very good, so I'll implement this approach. Sorry for the delayed
>> feedback, I am traveling this week.
> I had issues with cases where application or LD_PRELOAD library also
> define the __rseq_handled symbol. They appear not to see the same
> address as the one initialized by

What exactly did you do?  How did you determine the addresses?  How is
__rseq_handled defined in


Powered by blists - more mailing lists