linux-kernel - Re: bcm33xx port

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:	Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:20:38 -0500
From:	Luke -Jr <luke@...hjr.org>
To:	"Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@...s.com>
Cc:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: bcm33xx port

On Sunday 08 June 2008, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> Luke -Jr wrote:
> > On Sunday 08 June 2008, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> >> and (b) control being transferred to a block of memory that isn't
> >> actually code, as can happen if exception vectors or global
> >> pointers-to-functions aren't set up correctly, or if the kernel stack is
> >> being corrupted.   When you say "the instruction in question is a store
> >> word", how do you know that?
> >
> > The RI error spits out a bunch of info, including epc which presumably
> > points to the instruction causing the problem: ac85ffc0; this is 'sw
> > a1,-64(a0)'
>
> But unless the processor itself is actually defective, there is no way that
> a  SW instruction can cause an RI exception. Sometimes a kernel crash 
> is so violent that the kernel stack frame cannot be reliably decoded by
> the crash dump code, and this would appear to be one of those cases.

In that case, wouldn't the "kernel stack" appear to be complete nonsense?
Yet the stack in this case is quite logical and consistent. Furthermore, if I 
skip the bzero stuff (by commenting out the call), it will crash shortly 
thereafter when the ELF loader attempts to write to it in another way.
Is it very unlikely that the bcm3345 is simply raising the wrong exception (or 
perhaps Linux is misinterpreting the exception)?

> I find the address of 0xac85ffc0 to be a bit suspicious, myself.  That's
> a kseg1 (non-cacheable identity map) address for physical address
> 0x0c85ffc0, which would be legitimate (though suspicious) if you had
> 256MB of RAM, but the boot log quote you posted earlier suggests
> that you've only got 16M.  Is there really memory of some kind at
> that address?  Are you calling routines in a boot ROM from Linux?

ac85ffc0 is the instruction for 'sw a1,-64(a0)', not an address.
The board has only 8 MB RAM, to the best I can tell from looking up the RAM 
chip (hynix KOREA HY57V641620HG 0229A T-7).

> Debugging Linux kernel crashes is probably not the best way to learn
> the MIPS privileged resource architecture.  I'd strongly recommend
> http://www.amazon.com/See-MIPS-Second-Dominic-Sweetman/dp/0120884216/

Can you recommend any gratis materials to read? I don't have room in my budget 
to spend money on this hobby right now..

Luke
--
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/