![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Saving and restoring eflags in user mode avoids all of these > > complications, and means that there are no special cases. None. Zero. > > Nada. > > 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. I looked a bit at what it would take to have the TF bit handled by the sysenter path, and it might not be so horrible - certainly not as ugly as the register restore bits. Jamie, if you want to do it, it looks like you could add a new "work" bit in the thread flags, and add it to the _TIF_ALLWORK_MASK tests. At least that way it wouldn't touch the regular code, and I don't think that the result would have any strange "magic EIP" tests or anything horrible like that ;) Linus - 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||