linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/signals: Fix save/restore signal stack to correctly support sigset

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201128052317.GY3576660@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Sat, 28 Nov 2020 05:23:17 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Walt Drummond <walt@...mmond.us>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, brgerst@...il.com, linux@...inikbrodowski.net,
        gustavoars@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/signals: Fix save/restore signal stack to correctly
 support sigset_t

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 02:11:33PM -0800, Walt Drummond wrote:
> The macro unsafe_put_sigmask() only handles the first 64 bits of the
> sigmask_t, which works today.  However, if the definition of the
> sigset_t structure ever changed,

... existing userland would get fucked over, since sigset_t is
present in user-visible data structures.  Including the ones
we are using that thing for - struct rt_sigframe, for starters.

Layout of those suckers is very much cast in stone.  We *can't*
change it, no matter what we do kernel-side.

NAKed-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>