Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] x86, mpx: Support 32-bit binaries on 64-bit kernels

[Dave Hansen]

On 12/12/2014 12:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> You want the same size structures with the same format for 32-bit and
>> 64-bit modes?
> 
> Yes.  Especially because programs can switch between 32-bit and 64-bit
> mode entirely in userspace.  I don't know whether any do in practice,
> but programs *can*.

So, you want a 2GB of the 32-bit address space dedicated to a bounds
directory, and half of the space for the bounds tables to be simply
zero-filled unused address bits?  That seems, um, a bit unreasonable.

> Or better yet: Intel could have skipped supporting it at all in 32-bit
> mode.  

So, we should not have this security feature for 32-bit apps... because
it costs us 50 lines of code in the kernel to support?  Did you look at
the diffstat?

> Isn't mpx somewhat of an address space hog anyway?

Yes, it will be troublesome for 32-bit apps that are already bumping up
against the virtual address space size to support it.  But, really, how
many of those *are* there these days?
--
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/