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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:54:02 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Borislav Petkov <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
        Jan Kratochvil <>,
        Pedro Alves <>, Peter Anvin <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86: fix get_nr_restart_syscall()

Andy Lutomirski <> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:02 PM Linus Torvalds
> <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:19 AM Oleg Nesterov <> wrote:
>> >
>> > Andy, Linus, do you have any objections?
>> It's ok by me, no objections. I still don't love your "hide the bit in
>> thread flags over return to user space", and would still prefer it in
>> the restart block, but I don't care _that_ deeply.
> I'd rather stick it in restart_block.  I'd also like to see the kernel
> *verify* that the variant of restart_syscall() that's invoked is the
> same as the variant that should be invoked.  In my mind, very few
> syscalls say "I can't believe there are no major bugs in here" like
> restart_syscall(), and being conservative is nice.

Just mopping up my backlog. What happened to this?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists