[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXaARjGa+fCmxDDYNQCgv0ZSm+DaUFoXFmRxU9J245HxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:57:35 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Samuel Neves <samuel.c.p.neves@...il.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/retpoline/entry: Disable the entire SYSCALL64 fast
path with retpolines on
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> NetBSD (and the other BSD?) defines a structure for the arguments to
>> each syscall.
>
> Goes back to v7 or so but they put the syscall arguments into the uarea
> so that no pointers were needed (uarea being a per process mapping at a
> fixed address) in order to also reduce pointer dereferencing costs (not
> that those matter much on modern processors)
>
I gave the rearrangement like this a try yesterday and it's a bit of a
mess. Part of the problem is that there are a bunch of pieces of code
that expect sys_xyz() to be actual callable functions. The best way
to deal with that is probably to switch to calling normal functions.
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.
