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: <20190926155147.GL9689@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:51:47 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Allow disabling of the compat vDSO

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 08:47:18AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:50AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > On 9/25/19 6:08 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:53:16AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 6:09 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > >>> - clean up the headers includes; vDSO should not include kernel-only
> > >>>   headers that may even contain code patched at run-time
> > >>
> > >> This is a big one; Clang validates the inline asm constraints for
> > >> extended inline assembly, GCC does not for dead code.  So Clang chokes
> > >> on the inclusion of arm64 headers using extended inline assembly when
> > >> being compiled for arm-linux-gnueabi.
> > > 
> > > Whether clang or gcc, I'd like this fixed anyway. At some point we may
> > > inadvertently rely on some code which is patched at boot time for the
> > > kernel code but not for the vDSO.
> > 
> > Do we have any code of this kind in header files?
> > 
> > The vDSO library uses only a subset of the headers (mainly Macros) hence all the
> > unused symbols should be compiled out. Is your concern only theoretical or do
> > you have an example on where this could be happening?
> 
> At the moment it's rather theoretical.

Actually, it's not. The moment the compat vdso Makefile needs the line
below, we are doing it wrong:

VDSO_CFLAGS += -D__uint128_t='void*'

-- 
Catalin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ