linux-kernel - Re: remove set

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: <CAK8P3a3BN-Afy4Gj+mGjxiKODUBZwjh+XRbXqQKV-uEhyhOTfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 00:14:59 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: remove set_fs for riscv

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:17 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 08:15:03PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Is there a bigger plan for the rest? I can probably have a look at the Arm
> > OABI code if nobody else working on that yet.
>
> m68knommu seems mostly trivial and not interact much with m68k/mmu,
> so that woud be my next target.  All the other seems to share more
> code for the mmu and nommu case, so they'd have to be done per arch.
>
> arm would be my first target because it is used widespread, and its
> current set_fs implemenetation is very strange.  But given thar you
> help maintaining arm SOCs and probably know the arch code much better
> than I do I'd be more than happy to leave that to you.

I've had a first pass at this now, see

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git/log/?h=arm-kill-set_fs

There are a couple of things in there that ended up uglier than I was
hoping for, and it's completely untested beyond compilation. Is this
roughly what you had in mind? I can do some testing then and post
it to the Arm mailing list.

      Arnd