Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] x86: Implement arch_prctl(ARCH_VSYSCALL_CONTROL) to disable vsyscall

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


* Andy Lutomirski:

> Is there a reason you didn't just change the check earlier in the
> function to:
> if (vsyscall_mode == NONE || current->mm->context.vsyscall_disabled)

Andrei requested that I don't print anything if vsyscall was disabled.

The original patch used a different message for better diagnostics.

> Also, I still think the prctl should not be available if
> vsyscall=emulate.  Either we should fully implement it or we should
> not implement.  We could even do:
> pr_warn_once("userspace vsyscall hardening request ignored because you
> have vsyscall=emulate.  Unless you absolutely need vsyscall=emulate, 
> update your system to use vsyscall=xonly.\n");
> and thus encourage good behavior.

I think there is still some hardening applied even with
vsyscall=emulate.  The question is what is more important: the
additional hardening, or clean, easily described behavior of the

Maybe ARCH_VSYSCALL_CONTROL could return different values based on to
what degree it could disable vsyscall?

The pr_warn_once does not seem particularly useful.  Anyone who upgrades
glibc and still uses vsyscall=emulate will see that, with no way to
disable it.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux