| 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: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 00:10:05 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, 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) * Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote: > > Why not just add the simple validation? > > > > A kernel stack is one page in size. If you move to another page, you > > terminate. It's that simple. > > No, it's not. On x86-64 it can be three or more stacks nested in > complicated ways (process stack, interrupt stack, exception stack) The > exception stack can happen multiple times. it could be cleanly handled though: in June i suggested to use the next-stack pointers at the end of exception pages. The only current complexity here is that the 'linking' of exception pages is non-uniform, it depends on the type of page. That's largely why that complex statemachine had to be implemented, to match up the type of the page. Since those pointers are put there by us, there's no real reason why we couldnt standardize them. 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