linux-kernel - Re: kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:36:44 +0000
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	Alistair John Strachan <s0348365@....ed.ac.uk>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>, 76306.1226@...puserve.com,
	akpm@...l.org, bunk@...sta.de, greg@...ah.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems

Hi!

> > (I realise with problems like these it's almost always some sort of obscure 
> > hardware problem, but I find that very difficult to believe when I can toggle 
> > from 3 years of stability to 6-18 hours crashing by switching compiler. I've 
> > also ran extensive stability test programs on the hardware with absolutely no 
> > negative results.)
> 
> The thing is, I agree with you - it does seem to be compiler-related. But 
> at the same time, I'm almost positive that it's not in "pipe_poll()" 
> itself, because that function is just too simple, and looking at the 
> assembly code, I don't see how what you describe could happen in THAT 
> function.
> 
> HOWEVER.
> 
> I can easily see an NMI coming in, or another interrupt, or something, and 
> that one corrupting the stack under it because of a compiler bug (or a 
> kernel bug that just needs a specific compiler to trigger). For example, 
> we've had problems before with the compiler thinking it owns the stack 
> frame for an "asmlinkage" function, and us having no way to tell the 
> compiler to keep its hands off - so the compiler ended up touching 
> registers that were actually in the "save area" of the interrupt or system 
> call, and then returning with corrupted state.
> 
> Here's a stupid patch. It just adds more debugging to the oops message, 
> and shows all the code pointers it can find on the WHOLE stack.
> 
> It also makes the raw stack dumping print out as much of the stack 
> contents _under_ the stack pointer as it does above it too.
> 
> However, this patch is mostly useless if you have a separate stack for 
> IRQ's (since if that happens, any interrupt will be taken on a different 
> stack which we don't see any more), so you should NOT enable the 4KSTACKS 
> config option if you try this out.

stupid idea... perhaps gcc-4.1 generates bigger stackframe somewhere,
and stack overflows?

that hw monitoring thingie... I'd turn it off. Its interactions with
acpi are non-trivial and dangerous.
						Pavel
-- 
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
-
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/