lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: soft lockup when passing vvar address to write(2)
On Mar 5, 2016 1:04 AM, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > Thomas, I still think we should consider just deleting the HPET vclock
> > > code and accept the syscall overhead on systems that are stuck using
> > > HPET. If fast syscalls are available (which should include every
> > > system with HPET, unless there are some 32-bit AMD systems lying
> > > around), then the overhead in a syscall is *tiny* compared to the code
> > > of the HPET read itself.
> >
> > No objection from my side, really.
>
> Seconded. HPET hardware overhead is typically horrifically large in any case, no
> need to memory map it and expose hardware breakages to user-space ...

I'll do it for 4.7.

>
> It's also a (mild) security hole: a well-known HPET address can be abused as a
> statistical trampoline periodically cycling through 'dangerous' instruction
> values.

That weakness has closed for quite a while -- it's mapped NX and it's
randomized.

I'm also not planning to revert the mapping security improvement --
even if we remove the HPET code, it still applies to kvmclock and to
anything else that gets added in the future. It's also very little
code.

--Andy

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-03-06 04:41    [W:0.049 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site