linux-kernel - Re: PANIC: double fault, error_code: 0x0 in 4.0.0-rc3-2, kvm related?

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, 18 Mar 2015 15:28:02 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Stefan Seyfried <stefan.seyfried@...glemail.com>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: PANIC: double fault, error_code: 0x0 in 4.0.0-rc3-2, kvm related?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> But what if the GPF handler pagefaults afterwards? It'd be operating on
> user stack already.

So I think this might be the answer. We don't see the GP fault,
because we don't have a backtrace, because that backtrace is on the
user stack (which is why the stack trace dumping fails - we should
probably fix that, btw - the second oops is just confusing and not
helpful).

Is the intel check for canonical address (that __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT
thing) perhaps wrong or not as strict as Intel CPU's do? We'd never
notice in normal situations..

                    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/