linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.23 regression: accessing invalid mmap'ed memory from gdb causes unkillable spinning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc:	Duane Griffin <duaneg@...da.com>,
	linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23 regression: accessing invalid mmap'ed memory from gdb
 causes unkillable spinning

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> Well the patch is right, in the context of the regression I introduced
> (and so it should probably go into 2.6.23).

Yeah, it probably is fine for -stable.

And if mine (which actually changes behaviour, in that it makes ptrace get 
an access error) causes regressions, I guess we'll have to use that 
compatible-with-old-behaviour one for 2.6.24 too.

But I just rebooted and tested - the cleaned-up patch does seem to work 
fine, and I get "Cannot access memory at address <xyz>" rather than any 
reported problem.

So I think I'll commit my version asap, and see if anybody reports that 
they have a situation where they use ptrace() and expect zero back from a 
shared mapping past the end.. And if there are issues, we can switch back 
to the old broken behaviour with your patch,

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