linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] signal: Extend exec

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjz0LEi68oGJSQzZ--3JTFF+dX2yDaXDRKUpYxtBB=Zfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 16:51:38 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        Adam Zabrocki <pi3@....com.pl>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Extend exec_id to 64bits

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> GCC will generate code for this without complaining, but I think it'll
> probably generate a tearing store on 32-bit platforms:

This is very much a "we don't care" case.

It's literally testing a sequence counter for equality. If you get
tearing in the high bits on the write (or the read), you'd still need
to have the low bits turn around 4G times to get a matching value.

So no. We're not doing atomics for the 32-bit case. That's insane.

               Linus