On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 19:53 +0300, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> 08.03.2017 19:46, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> >> No no, since I meant prot mode, this is not what I need.
> >> I would never need to disable UMIP as to allow the
> >> prot mode apps to do SLDT. Instead it would be good
> >> to have an ability to provide a replacement for the dummy
> >> emulation that is currently being proposed for kernel.
> >> All is needed for this, is just to deliver a SIGSEGV.
> > That's what I meant.  Turning off FIXUP_UMIP would leave UMIP on but
> > turn off the fixup, so you'd get a SIGSEGV indicating #GP (or a vm86
> > GP exit).
> But then I am confused with the word "compat" in
> your "COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP_FIXUP" and
> "sys_adjust_compat_mask(int op, int word, u32 mask);"
> Leaving UMIP on and only disabling a fixup doesn't
> sound like a compat option to me. I would expect
> compat to disable it completely.

I guess that the _UMIP_FIXUP part makes it clear that emulation, not
UMIP is disabled, allowing the SIGSEGV be delivered to the user space

Would having a COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP_FIXUP to disable emulation and a
COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP to disable UMIP make sense?

Also, wouldn't having a COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP to disable UMIP defeat its
purpose? Applications could simply use this compat mask to bypass UMIP
and gain access to the instructions it protects.

Thanks and BR,

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to