Re: [PATCH v4 00/24] ILP32 for ARM64

[Catalin Marinas]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:50:51PM +0200, Dr. Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2015, at 13:22, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think you are right. I was more thinking of those routed directly to
> > the native (non-compat) syscalls. We would need to make sure the return
> > value (X0 being the only register not restored on return from exception)
> > has the top 32-bit part zeroed.
> 
> As the kernel is LP64 and will thus attempt to return a 64bit return value, the
> high bits should be properly sign-extended in all cases.
> 
> The problem (posed by procedure call standard) of information leakage could 
> manifest itself only, if the kernel tried to return something smaller than 64 bitsâ 
> in that case, we can the problem would already exhibit for the LP64 ABI. 
> 
> For the ILP32 implementation, Iâll thus assume that all LP64 ABI calls reused
> are clean in this regard.

Yes. All the compat_sys_* are defined to return a long, so even if ILP32
user space treats it as 32-bit, there is no information leak because of
the kernel's sign-extension. So just a false alarm, we can consider this
part sorted.

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/