[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110813163252.GA18458@albatros>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:32:52 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, x86@...nel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC] x86: restrict pid namespaces to
32 or 64 bit syscalls
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:41 -0500, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> IA64 is totally different.
I didn't say all IA-32 compatibility layer of x86 is a crap, surely no.
But there is some code, which is poorly tested exactly because it is
compatibility code. One relatively recent example:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=3e645d6b485446c54c6745c5e2cf5c528fe4deec
> I'm extremely sceptical to this patch;
> it feels like putting code in a super-hot path to paper over a problem that has to be fixed anyway.
I'll move the check to the tracesys branch, which is not a hot path, in
the next RFC version, so this should not be a problem.
Thanks,
--
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
