On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 03:52:11PM +0800, yalin wang wrote:
> i am not clear about what is STAC / SMAP ?
> could you give me a link for understanding ?
the first item I found by googling was
https://lwn.net/Articles/517251/
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-k
> On Aug 22, 2015, at 17:05, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 02:06:16PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> What I'm saying is that we do do STAC, which *disables* SMAP. We have
>> to do that because one pointer is known to be a user space pointer.
>>
>> However, we currently do
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 02:06:16PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> What I'm saying is that we do do STAC, which *disables* SMAP. We have
> to do that because one pointer is known to be a user space pointer.
>
> However, we currently don't verify that the *other* pointer is kernel
> space, which it
On 08/20/2015 09:35 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:22:43AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> There is a valid reason to do this, which is that currently
>> copy_{to,from}_user() effectively bypass SMAP as they don't verify that
>> the kernel pointer is actually a kernel point
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:22:43AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> There is a valid reason to do this, which is that currently
> copy_{to,from}_user() effectively bypass SMAP as they don't verify that
> the kernel pointer is actually a kernel pointer.
Well, we do STAC before we copy but SMAP is che
On 08/16/2015 09:16 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:27:01AM +0800, yalin wang wrote:
>> i just want the x86 copy_from{to,in}_user() function have
>> the same behaviour as other platforms.
>
> Back to the original question from 2 mails ago:
>
> How else would we be able to
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 12:16, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:27:01AM +0800, yalin wang wrote:
>> i just want the x86 copy_from{to,in}_user() function have
>> the same behaviour as other platforms.
>
> Back to the original question from 2 mails ago:
>
> How else would we
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:27:01AM +0800, yalin wang wrote:
> i just want the x86 copy_from{to,in}_user() function have
> the same behaviour as other platforms.
Back to the original question from 2 mails ago:
How else would we be able to use the same function in copy_to and
copy_from variants?
> On Aug 14, 2015, at 00:43, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:04:54PM +0800, yalin wang wrote:
>> we store type into one fix register, for example r12 ,
>> then in fix up code, we can know the exception is caused by copy_from
>> copy_to or copy_in user function by check r12
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:04:54PM +0800, yalin wang wrote:
> we store type into one fix register, for example r12 ,
> then in fix up code, we can know the exception is caused by copy_from
> copy_to or copy_in user function by check r12 value(0 , 1 ,2 value), then if
> it is copy_from, we only all
> On Aug 12, 2015, at 18:07, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 05:01:14PM +0800, yalin wang wrote:
>> hi x86 maintainers,
>>
>> i have a question about copy_from{to}_user() function,
>> i find on other platforms like arm/ arm64 /hexagon,
>> all copy_from{to}_user function only
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 05:01:14PM +0800, yalin wang wrote:
> hi x86 maintainers,
>
> i have a question about copy_from{to}_user() function,
> i find on other platforms like arm/ arm64 /hexagon,
> all copy_from{to}_user function only check source address for
> copy_from and only check to address f
12 matches
Mail list logo
