[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44D0DCF5.8050906@aknet.ru>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:12:21 +0400
From: Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>
To: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
Cc: Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: + espfix-code-cleanup.patch added to -mm tree
Hi,
Zachary Amsden wrote:
> You need to get a #GP or #NP on the faulting iret. Several ways to do
> that -
I do that much simpler - I provoke a SIGSEGV and in a signal handler
I put the wrong value to scp->cs or scp->ss, and that makes iret to fault.
> iret faults, but doesn't pop the user return frame.
But does it push the kernel frame after it or not?
If not - I don't understand how we go to a fixup.
If yes - I don't understand how the user's frame gets
accessed later, as it is above the kernel's frame.
>> safe limit is regs->esp + THREAD_SIZE*2... Well, may just I not do
>> that please? :)
>> For what, btw? There are no such a things for __KERNEL_DS or anything, so
>> I just don't see the necessity.
> It helps track down any bugs that could leak through otherwise and
> corrupt random memory.
I think regs->esp + THREAD_SIZE*2 is already very permissive,
and I'd like to avoid messing with granularity. So unless you
really insist, I'll better not do that. :)
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists