linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] x86: check stack overflows more reliably

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:	Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:59:39 -0500
From:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
To:	HAYASAKA Mitsuo <mitsuo.hayasaka.hu@...achi.com>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] x86: check stack overflows more reliably

On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 04:34:28PM +0900, HAYASAKA Mitsuo wrote:
> Hi Pekka,
> 
> Thank you for your comments.
> 
> (2011/11/07 16:00), Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Mitsuo Hayasaka
> > <mitsuo.hayasaka.hu@...achi.com> wrote:
> >> (2) check stack overflow in detail
> >>    Currently, only kernel stack is checked for the overflow,
> >>    which is not sufficient for enterprise systems. To enhance
> >>    reliability, expand stack overflow checking to IRQ and
> >>    exception stacks optionally. This is disabled by default
> >>    in Kconfig.
> > 
> > This sounds useful. What's the reason for not enabling this by
> > default? Performance regressions?
> 
> I'm worried about performance regressions because this patch checks 
> a stack overflow in detail.
> 
> However, I guess there is no problem for enabling it by default 
> since this option is for debug and appears only if a DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW
> option is enabled.
> 
> So, I'd like to send the revised patch if it does not have any further problem.
> 
> 

Another thought might be to make stack_overflow_check() depend on a jump
label. Its not something that going to be switch on/off often, and then perhaps
we wouldn't even need DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW...It seems like a good
use-case to me.

Thanks,

-Jason
--
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/