On 01/27/2014 01:54 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 01/26/2014 06:10 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 01/26/2014 05:55 PM, Ren Qiaowei wrote:
>>>
>>> Peter, you mean we should remove these two call and do what they do in
>>> user-space, right?
>>>
>>
>> Unless we think there is a benefit to the kernel to have a on/off switch
>> for the #BR exception (if disabled, all #BR exceptions are signals,
>> regardless of source.)
>
> Yes.
>
> For example, wouldn't UML want to have all of this stuff disabled?
> Presumably it would much prefer to receive the exception directly.
>
> The same goes for seccomp users -- as it currently stands, this code
> allows mmap without a system call.
>
> This probably means that the prctl should (optionally) take a parameter
> that fixes the address of the L1 table -- seccomp users would probably
> want that. (Actually, everyone might -- this is going to have weird
> results if the L1 table moves.)
>
That seems like a good argument. If the table has been moved by
userspace we can deliver the signal as a violation.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
