[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c7d092ebc21e4aedbefa9bce58dcfed4@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:23:39 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Will Deacon' <will.deacon@....com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Al Viro
<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, "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
From: Will Deacon
> Sent: 29 January 2018 13:20
...
> Another issue with this style of macro definition exists on architectures
> where the calling convention needs you to carry state around depending on
> how you packed the previous parameters. For example, on 32-bit ARM, 64-bit
> values are passed in adjacent pairs of registers but the low numbered
> register needs to be even. This is what stopped me from trying to use
> existing helpers such as syscall_get_arguments to unpack the pt_regs
> and it generally means that anything that says "get me argument n" is going
> to require constructing arguments 0..n-1 first.
>
> To do this properly I think we'll either need to pass back the size and
> current register offset to the arch code, or just allow the thing to be
> overridden per syscall (the case above isn't especially frequent).
If you generate a structure from the argument list that might work
'by magic'.
Certainly you can add explicit pads to any structure.
David
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.
