linux-kernel - Re: [x86] 5ac0c41bf3: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at arch/x86/mm/extable.c:50 ex_handler_rdmsr

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, 15 Jun 2016 20:07:22 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, wfg@...ux.intel.com,
	LKP <lkp@...org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [x86] 5ac0c41bf3: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at
 arch/x86/mm/extable.c:50 ex_handler_rdmsr_unsafe

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:55:34AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Isn't it this one?

Yes, it is.

> I'm not.  If %pF points at some silly helper, we still want the frames below it.

Why silly helper? It points to the rIP where the *MSR instruction is.
Can't get more precise than that.

And yes, %pF is better:

[    0.030879] unchecked MSR access error: RDMSR from 0x1b0 at rIP: 0xffffffff81026d9f (init_intel_energy_perf.part.3+0xf/0xd0)

Ok, I'll send a patch.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.