Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:36:38PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 28/08/2024 à 19:25, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
>> >
>> >>Not sure about static binaries, though: do those even use the VDSO?
>> >
>> >With "static binary" people usually mean "a binary no
Le 29/08/2024 à 20:02, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:36:38PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 28/08/2024 à 19:25, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
Not sure about static binaries, though: do those even use the VDSO?
With "static binary" people usually mean "a bina
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:36:38PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 28/08/2024 à 19:25, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >
> >>Not sure about static binaries, though: do those even use the VDSO?
> >
> >With "static binary" people usually mean "a binary not using any DSOs",
> >I think the VDS
Le 28/08/2024 à 19:25, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
Not sure about static binaries, though: do those even use the VDSO?
With "static binary" people usually mean "a binary not using any DSOs",
I think the VDSO is a DSO, also in this respect? As always, -static
builds are *way* less problem
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 07:12:55PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 18:24, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > > In my experience, this is likely to do the opposite: it causes the
> > > compiler to 'forget' the semantics of memcpy() and memset(), so that
> > > explicit trivial cal
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 18:24, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 05:40:23PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 14:57, Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 12:24:12PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 20
Hi!
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 05:40:23PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 14:57, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 12:24:12PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024, at 11:18, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 14:57, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 12:24:12PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024, at 11:18, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:53:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:08:19
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 02:26:08PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 2:24 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024, at 11:18, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:53:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:0
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 12:24:12PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024, at 11:18, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:53:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:08:19AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Is there a compiler fl
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 07:33:13AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:18:34PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:53:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:08:19AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > > +
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:18:34PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:53:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:08:19AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(params->reserved); i++)
> > > > +
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 2:24 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024, at 11:18, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:53:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:08:19AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Is there a compiler flag that
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024, at 11:18, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:53:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:08:19AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
>> >
>> > Is there a compiler flag that could be used to disable the generation of
>> > calls
>> > to me
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:53:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:08:19AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:13:13AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > With the current implementation, __cvdso_getrandom_data() calls
> > > memset(), which is un
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:08:19AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:13:13AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > With the current implementation, __cvdso_getrandom_data() calls
> > memset(), which is unexpected in the VDSO.
> >
> > Rewrite opaque data initialisation to avoid m
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:08:19AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:13:13AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > With the current implementation, __cvdso_getrandom_data() calls
> > memset(), which is unexpected in the VDSO.
> >
> > Rewrite opaque data initialisation to avoid m
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:13:13AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> With the current implementation, __cvdso_getrandom_data() calls
> memset(), which is unexpected in the VDSO.
>
> Rewrite opaque data initialisation to avoid memset().
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy
> ---
> lib/vdso/getrand
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:13:13AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> With the current implementation, __cvdso_getrandom_data() calls
> memset(), which is unexpected in the VDSO.
>
> Rewrite opaque data initialisation to avoid memset().
I think of the various ways I've seen of fixing this -- e.g. a
With the current implementation, __cvdso_getrandom_data() calls
memset(), which is unexpected in the VDSO.
Rewrite opaque data initialisation to avoid memset().
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy
---
lib/vdso/getrandom.c | 15 ++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff
20 matches
Mail list logo
