Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756101Ab1FFLVt (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 07:21:49 -0400 Received: from r00tworld.com ([212.85.137.150]:37511 "EHLO r00tworld.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754559Ab1FFLVr (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 07:21:47 -0400 From: pageexec@freemail.hu To: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:20:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64, vsyscalls: Rename UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to COMPAT_VSYSCALLS Reply-to: pageexec@freemail.hu CC: Andy Lutomirski , x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jesper Juhl , Borislav Petkov , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Jan Beulich , richard -rw- weinberger , Mikael Pettersson , Andi Kleen , Brian Gerst , Louis Rilling , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Message-ID: <4DECB7E8.5549.12290923@pageexec.freemail.hu> In-reply-to: <20110606102419.GA837@elte.hu> References: , , <20110606102419.GA837@elte.hu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.61) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.12 (r00tworld.com [212.85.137.150]); Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:20:43 +0200 (CEST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1229 Lines: 31 On 6 Jun 2011 at 12:24, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > CONFIG_UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS was added in the previous patch as a > > > temporary hack to avoid penalizing users who don't build glibc from > > > git. > > > > I really hate that name. > > > > Do you have *any* reason to call this "unsafe"? > > No, there's no reason at all for that. That naming is borderline > security FUD and last time i saw the series i considered renaming > it but got distracted :-) security FUD? for real? ;) does that mean that you guys would accept a patch that would map the vdso at a fixed address for old times's sake? if not, on what grounds would you refuse it? see, you can't have it both ways. the fixed address of the vsyscall page *is* a very real security problem, it should have never been accepted as such and it's high time it went away finally in 2011AD. -- 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/