linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 7/9] x86: Enable Syscall User Dispatch

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: <87zh5g5jk1.fsf@collabora.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 16:23:26 -0400
From:   Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     luto@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        willy@...radead.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        shuah@...nel.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 7/9] x86: Enable Syscall User Dispatch

Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:

> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 04:31:45PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>> Syscall User Dispatch requirements are fully supported in x86. This
>> patch flips the switch, marking it as supported.  This was tested
>> against Syscall User Dispatch selftest.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> index 7101ac64bb20..56ac8de99021 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ config X86
>>  	select HAVE_ARCH_COMPAT_MMAP_BASES	if MMU && COMPAT
>>  	select HAVE_ARCH_PREL32_RELOCATIONS
>>  	select HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER
>> +	select HAVE_ARCH_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH
>
> Is this needed at all? I think simply "the architecture uses the generic
> entry code" is sufficient to enable it. (Especially since there's a top
> level config for SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH, it feels like overkill).

Maybe it is not necessary.  The reason I have this is to prevent
architectures migrating to the generic entry code from inadvertently
starting to support this feature, without thinking in advance whether
arch_syscall_is_vdso_sigreturn is needed.  If that is not a good reason,
I'm happy to drop it.

-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi