Re:size_t-to-int vulnerability in Linux’s filesystem layer
by saagarjha on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @04:59PM
(#27899243)
I don’t see this happening unless it makes it into the ARM ISA.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:size_t-to-int vulnerability in Linux’s filesystem layer
by gumby on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @05:04PM
(#27899305)
I don’t know the terms of Apple’s license with ARM, do you? I’m quite interested.
Given that Apple was one of the original founders of ARM it’s quite possible that their license allows much more latitude anyone else’s.
Re:size_t-to-int vulnerability in Linux’s filesystem layer
by saagarjha on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @06:05PM
(#27899962)
Adding new instructions to userspace programs is almost certainly not going to fly. All of their extensions have been hidden behind an opaque API, or limited to use in the kernel.
Re:size_t-to-int vulnerability in Linux’s filesystem layer
by masklinn on Wednesday July 21, 2021 @03:43AM
(#27903462)
That… makes no architectural difference at all. As far as the architecture is concerned, these are architectural extensions either way: userspace programs can observably contain and execute instructions which are not standard ARM.
If AMX is allowed under their license, there is no reason why checked extensions would not be.
Re:size_t-to-int vulnerability in Linux’s filesystem layer
by ridiculous_fish on Wednesday July 21, 2021 @02:46AM
(#27903048)
Apple benefits from compatibility with the ARM ecosystem, but there’s no downsides (from their perspective) from extending it. Their chips are “Apple Silicon”, setting the stage for forging ahead alone. I think it’s a card they hold in reserve, to be played when the time is right, like the Intel transition.
Re:size_t-to-int vulnerability in Linux’s filesystem layer
by hermitdev on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @06:00PM
(#27899930)
I'm not familiar with ARM ISA, but from the godbolt disassembly, it doesn't look like anything special going on here - just the ASM being generated. What's happening here is it just does the add, jumps on overflow flag set to an invalid opcode...