linux-kernel - Re: Incorrect alignment assumptions in x86

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]

Message-ID: <14016.1156491781@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:43:01 +1000
From:	Keith Owens <kaos@....com.au>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Incorrect alignment assumptions in x86_64 stacktrace 

Andi Kleen (on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:33:53 +0200) wrote:
>On Friday 25 August 2006 08:59, Keith Owens wrote:
>> 2.6.18-rc4 arch/x86_64/kernel/stacktrace.c::get_stack_end() incorrectly
>> assumes that the irqstackptr is IRQSTACKSIZE aligned.
>> 
>> 	stack_end = (unsigned long)cpu_pda(cpu)->irqstackptr;
>> 	if (stack_end) {
>> 		stack_start = stack_end & ~(IRQSTACKSIZE-1);
>> 
>> irqstackptr is only guaranteed to be page aligned, not IRQSTACKSIZE
>> (4*PAGE_SIZE) aligned.
>
>Thanks. I have already removed that code post 2.6.18 (the standard backtracer
>now does both stacktrace and show_trace) 
>
>You think it is important enough for 2.6.18?

Depends if any x86_64 distributions are going to be based on 2.6.18.  I
hear rumours, but no facts.

-
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/