From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
security@kernel.org, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com>,
Michael Davidson <md@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Security] DoS on x86_64
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:27:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B621D48.4090203@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001281507080.3846@localhost.localdomain>
On 01/28/2010 03:09 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> So this patch, *plus* removing any delayed side effects from
>> SET_PERSONALITY() [e.g. the TIF_ABI_PENDING stuff in x86-64 which is
>> intended to have a forward action from SET_PERSONALITY() to
>> flush_thread()] might just work. I will try it out.
>
> Yeah, if you do that, then my "split up" patch isn't necessary. And it
> would make the code a whole lot more straightforward, and remove that
> whole crazy TIF_ABI_PENDING thing.
>
> Getting rid of the whole TIF_ABI_PENDING crap would be wonderful. It would
> make SET_PERSONALITY() (and flush_thread()) way more obvious.
>
> So that would be much better than the untested "split up flush_old_exec"
> patch I just sent out. So forget that patch, and let's go with your
> further cleanup approach instead.
>
I think your splitup patch might still be a good idea in the sense that
your flush_old_exec() is the parts that can fail.
So I think the splitup patch, plus removing delayed effects, might be
the right thing to do? Testing that approach now...
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-28 23:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-28 7:34 DoS on x86_64 Mathias Krause
2010-01-28 8:18 ` [Security] " Andrew Morton
2010-01-28 15:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-28 22:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-28 22:47 ` Mathias Krause
2010-01-28 22:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-28 23:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-28 23:27 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2010-01-28 23:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-29 4:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-29 4:43 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions Linus Torvalds
2010-01-29 4:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: get rid of the insane TIF_ABI_PENDING bit Linus Torvalds
2010-01-29 5:17 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:05 ` [Security] DoS on x86_64 H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: get rid of the insane TIF_ABI_PENDING bit H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:36 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:36 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: get rid of the insane TIF_ABI_PENDING bit H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: get rid of the insane TIF_ABI_PENDING bit H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 5:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 6:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-29 6:14 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: get rid of the insane TIF_ABI_PENDING bit H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-28 23:06 ` [Security] DoS on x86_64 Linus Torvalds
2010-01-28 23:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-28 21:31 ` Mathias Krause
2010-01-28 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-28 21:49 ` Mathias Krause
2010-01-28 21:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-28 22:08 ` Mathias Krause
2010-01-28 22:18 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B621D48.4090203@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=md@google.com \
--cc=mikew@google.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=minipli@googlemail.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=security@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.