linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/vdso: use the right GDT_ENTRY_CPUNODE for 32-bit getcpu() on 64-bit kernel

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]

Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 08:22:32 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        yujie.liu@...el.com, shan.kang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/vdso: use the right GDT_ENTRY_CPUNODE for 32-bit
 getcpu() on 64-bit kernel

On 3/11/23 00:48, Xin Li wrote:
>  #define GDT_ENTRY_ESPFIX_SS		26
>  #define GDT_ENTRY_PERCPU		27
> +#ifndef BUILD_VDSO32_64
>  #define GDT_ENTRY_CPUNODE		28
> +#else
> +#define GDT_ENTRY_CPUNODE		15
> +#endif

Isn't this kinda a hack?

First, it means that we'll now have two duplicate versions of this:

	#define GDT_ENTRY_CPUNODE		15

in the same file.

Second, if any other users of fake_32bit_build.h for the VDSO show up,
they'll need a similar #ifdef.

I think I'd much rather if we define all of the GDT_ENTRY_* macros in
*one* place, then make that *one* place depend on BUILD_VDSO32_64.

Also, about the *silent* failure...  Do we not have a selftest for this
somewhere?