[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUUKb6oyBmB3CSeVy1xT7mcnV=BD2eipAnKUhma7K3qKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 10:39:05 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 25/25] x86/cet/shstk: Add arch_prctl functions for
shadow stack
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 4:38 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:24 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > * H. J. Lu:
> >
> > > Can you think of ANY issues of passing more arguments to arch_prctl?
> >
> > On x32, the glibc arch_prctl system call wrapper only passes two
> > arguments to the kernel, and applications have no way of detecting that.
> > musl only passes two arguments on all architectures. It happens to work
> > anyway with default compiler flags, but that's an accident.
>
> In the current glibc, there is no arch_prctl wrapper for i386. There are
> arch_prctl wrappers with 2 arguments for x86-64 and x32. But this isn't an
> issue for glibc since glibc is both the provider and the user of the new
> arch_prctl extension. Besides,
>
> long syscall(long number, ...);
>
> is always available.
Userspace is probably full of tools and libraries that contain tables
of system calls and their signatures. Think tracing, audit, container
management, etc. I don't know how they will react to the addition of
new arguments.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists