linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
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 20:43:24 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001282040160.3768@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B621D48.4090203@zytor.com>



On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
> 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...

So I didn't see any patch from you, so here's my try instead. 

I'll follow up with two patches: the first one does the split-up (and I 
tried to make it very obvious that it has _no_ semantic changes what-so- 
ever and is purely a preparatory patch), and the second actually changes 
the ELF loader to do the SET_PERSONALITY() call in the sane spot, and gets 
rid of that crazy indirect bit.

Comments?

It looks like ppc/sparc have had similar issues, I have _not_ done those 
architectures. I don't imagine that they'll complain much.

		Linus

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-01-29  4:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-01-28  7:34 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
2010-01-28 23:46             ` Linus Torvalds
2010-01-29  4:43             ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
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=alpine.LFD.2.00.1001282040160.3768@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --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 \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox