* Yu-cheng Yu:
> +ENDBR
> +The compiler inserts an ENDBR at all valid branch targets. Any
> +CALL/JMP to a target without an ENDBR triggers a control
> +protection fault.
Is this really correct? I think ENDBR is needed only for indirect
branch targets where the jump/call does not ha
* Yu-cheng Yu:
> To me, looking at PT_GNU_PROPERTY and not trying to support anything is a
> logical choice. And it breaks only a limited set of toolchains.
>
> I will simplify the parser and leave this patch as-is for anyone who wants to
> back-port. Are there any objections or concerns?
Red H
* Yu-cheng Yu:
> On Fri, 2019-06-07 at 14:09 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 6/7/19 1:06 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>> > > Huh, how does glibc know about all possible past and future legacy code
>> > > in the application?
>> >
>> > When dlopen() gets a legacy binary and the policy allows that, it wil
* Dave Hansen:
> My assumption has always been that these large, potentially sparse
> hardware tables *must* be mmap()'d with MAP_NORESERVE specified. That
> should keep them from being problematic with respect to overcommit.
MAP_NORESERVE pages still count towards the commit limit. The flag on
* Dave Martin:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:31:34PM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>> On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 12:41 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 07:24:43PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > > * Yu-cheng Yu:
>> > >
>> > >
* Peter Zijlstra:
> I'm not sure I read Thomas' comment like that. In my reading keeping the
> PT_NOTE fallback is exactly one of those 'fly workarounds'. By not
> supporting PT_NOTE only the 'fine' people already shit^Hpping this out
> of tree are affected, and we don't have to care about them at
* Yu-cheng Yu:
> The kernel looks at only ld-linux. Other applications are loaded by
> ld-linux.
> So the issues are limited to three versions of ld-linux's. Can we somehow
> update those??
I assumed that it would also parse the main executable and make
adjustments based on that.
ld.so can c
* Yu-cheng Yu:
>> I assumed that it would also parse the main executable and make
>> adjustments based on that.
>
> Yes, Linux also looks at the main executable's header, but not its
> NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0 if there is a loader.
>
>>
>> ld.so can certainly provide whatever the kernel needs. We
* Dave Martin:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:00:35AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>> On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 18:05 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > * Yu-cheng Yu:
>> >
>> > > > I assumed that it would also parse the main executable and make
>> >
* Andy Lutomirski:
> Also, I don't think there's any actual requirement that the upstream
> kernel recognize existing CET-enabled RHEL 8 binaries as being
> CET-enabled. I tend to think that RHEL 8 jumped the gun here.
The ABI was supposed to be finalized and everyone involved thought it
had bee
On 04/11/2017 08:36 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
Also, the latest benchmarks I've seen were mostly for user space
while I'm more concerned with the user-kernel interface
(https://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=148690490713310&w=2).
On the glibc testing side, have the regressions been identified/fixe
* Ram Pai:
> Testing:
> ---
> This patch series has passed all the protection key
> tests available in the selftest directory.The
> tests are updated to work on both x86 and powerpc.
> The selftests have passed on x86 and powerpc hardware.
How do you deal with the key reuse problem? Is it th
* Ram Pai:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 10:28:41PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Ram Pai:
>>
>> > Testing:
>> > ---
>> > This patch series has passed all the protection key
>> > tests available in the selftest directory.The
>> >
* Yu-cheng Yu:
> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 15:28 +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 08:05:50AM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>> > Update ARCH_CET_STATUS and ARCH_CET_DISABLE to include Indirect
>> > Branch Tracking features.
>> >
>> > Introduce:
>> >
>> > arch_prctl(ARCH_CET_L
* Dave Hansen:
> On 10/11/2018 08:15 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>> Create a guard area between VMAs to detect memory corruption.
>
> This is a pretty major change that has a bunch of end-user implications.
> It's not dependent on any debugging options and can't be turned on/off
> by individual apps,
15 matches
Mail list logo
