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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:25:24 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Eric Rannaud <eric.rannaud@...il.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, nagar@...son.ibm.com, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com> Subject: Re: BUG-lockdep and freeze (was: Arrr! Linux 2.6.18) * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> wrote: > It could - and _should_ dammit! - do some basic sanity tests like "is > the thing even in the same stack page"? But nooo... It seems > _designed_ to be fragile and broken. > > Here's a simple test: if the next stack-slot isn't on the same page, > the unwind information is bogus unless you had the IRQ stack-switch > signature there. Does the code do that? No. It just assumes that > unwind information is complete and perfect. fully agreed - i have pointed out areas of conceptual fragility to Jan early on: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/2/59 (but AFAICS i got no reply to that mail - i missed that in the lockdep flurry.) Ingo - 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