[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190726180103.GE3188@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:01:03 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Subject: Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic vDSO breaks seccomp-enabled userspace
on i386
+cc Paul
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 01:56:34AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:59:03AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > And as we have sys_clock_gettime64() exposed for 32bit anyway you need to
> > > deal with that in seccomp independently of the VDSO. It does not make sense
> > > to treat sys_clock_gettime() differently than sys_clock_gettime64(). They
> > > both expose the same information, but the latter is y2038 safe.
> >
> > Okay, so combining Andy's ideas on aliasing and "more seccomp flags",
> > we could declare that clock_gettime64() is not filterable on 32-bit at
> > all without the magic SECCOMP_IGNORE_ALIASES flag or something. Then we
> > would alias clock_gettime64 to clock_gettime _before_ the first evaluation
> > (unless SECCOMP_IGNORE_ALIASES is set)?
> >
> > (When was clock_gettime64() introduced? Is it too long ago to do this
> > "you can't filter it without a special flag" change?)
>
> clock_gettime64() and the other sys_*time64() syscalls which address the
> y2038 issue were added in 5.1
Paul Bolle pointed out that this regression showed up in v5.3-rc1, not
v5.2. In Paul's case, systemd-journal is failing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists