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  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]
Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:46:29 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,
	Daniel Borkmann <>,
	Network Development <>,
	"" <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Eric Paris <>,
	James Morris <>,
	Kees Cook <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: fix populating a0-a5 syscall args in 32-bit x86 BPF

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, David Miller <> wrote:
>>> From: Andy Lutomirski <>
>>> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:13:45 -0700
>>>> I think this description is wrong.  (unsigned long *) &sd->args[1] is
>>>> the right location, at least on 32-bit little-endian architectures.
>>> It absolutely is not.
>> Huh?  It's a pointer to the right address, but the type is wrong.
>> The changelog says "on 32-bit x86 (or any other 32bit arch), it would
>> result in storing a0-a5 at wrong offsets in args[] member".  Unless
>> I'm mistaken, this is incorrect: a0-a5 are are the correct offsets,
>> but they are stored with the wrong type, so the other bits in there
>> are garbage.
> agree. your above description is more correct than the log.
> We were focusing on the bug itself and the log came a bit misleading
> as a result of multiple iterations back and forth between me and Daniel.
> also the log says:
> "gcc is clever and optimizes the copy away in other cases, e.g. x86_64"
> since we actually checked assembler, so the fix doesn't pessimize
> 64-bit architectures :)
> This function is in critical path for seccomp, so performance definitely
> matters.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what I was thinking when I wrote that
part.  The new code should actually be much better than the old code
for weird architectures like ia-64.

For reference, ia-64 uses the unwinder (!) to look up arguments, so
the fewer times it gets invoked, the better.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists