Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 10:24:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 10:24:55 -0500 Received: from bjl1.asuk.net.64.29.81.in-addr.arpa ([81.29.64.88]:33922 "EHLO bjl1.asuk.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 10:24:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 15:32:29 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ulrich Drepper , bart@etpmod.phys.tue.nl, davej@codemonkey.org.uk, hpa@transmeta.com, terje.eggestad@scali.com, matti.aarnio@zmailer.org, hugh@veritas.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance Message-ID: <20021222153229.GA30269@bjl1.asuk.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 803 Lines: 20 Ingo Molnar wrote: > and i'm 100% sure the more robust eflags saving will also avoid security > holes. The amount of security-relevant complexity that comes from all the > x86 features [and their combinations] is amazing. Userspace can skip the "popfl" with a well-timed signal. If the "sysexit" path leaves the kernel with an unsafe eflags, that will propagate into the signal handler. AFAICT, one of these is required: 1. eflags must be safe before leaving kernel space, or 2. setup_sigcontext() must clean it up (it already does clear TF). -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/