On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 14:46 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 11/05/2014 07:53 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Enabling x32 in a distribution default kernel increases its attack
> > surface while providing no benefit to the vast majority of its users.
> > No-one seems interested in regularly checking
On 11/05/2014 07:53 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Enabling x32 in a distribution default kernel increases its attack
> surface while providing no benefit to the vast majority of its users.
> No-one seems interested in regularly checking for vulnerabilities
> specific to x32 (at least no-one with a whi
On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 09:02 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/syscall_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/syscall_64.c
> > index 4ac730b..7a6e66f 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/syscall_64.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -2455,6 +2455,14 @@ config X86_X32
> elf32_x86_64 support enabled to compile a kernel with this
> option set.
>
> +config X86_X32_DISABLED
> + bool "x32 ABI disabl
Enabling x32 in a distribution default kernel increases its attack
surface while providing no benefit to the vast majority of its users.
No-one seems interested in regularly checking for vulnerabilities
specific to x32 (at least no-one with a white hat).
Still, requiring a separate or custom confi
5 matches
Mail list logo
