linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] x86/dumpstack: Cleanups and user opcode bytes Code: section, v2

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:26:33 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] x86/dumpstack: Cleanups and user opcode bytes Code:
 section, v2

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:06:50PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 03:16:55PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > I don't think the stack tracing code could do anything better here.  #3
> > and #4 seem like an issue with the scheduler, it doesn't realize the
> > rest of the CPUs have all been taken offline due to the panic().
> 
> So maybe teach the WARN code to check whether a panic() has happened?

I get the feeling that disabling warnings could be papering over a real
bug, but maybe we don't care about bugs in the post-panic state?

Ideally we could just leave interrupts disabled, but I don't know if
that's generally feasible since it looks like sparc is waiting for
keyboard interrupts to allow breaking out to the boot prom.

-- 
Josh