| 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: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:59:39 -0500 From: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com> To: Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com> CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Wanted: simple, safe x86 stack overflow detection Bill Irwin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 09:41:44PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: >> I suppose one could have a CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_OVERFLOW that gets >> the stacks from vmalloc which would catch any overflow with its >> guard pages. This is you would need to change __pa() to handle >> that too because there might be still some drivers that do >> DMA on stack addresses. Would be somewhat ugly but doable. >> But I have my doubts it is worth it again -- in my experience static >> analysis works well enough to trace them down and >> there are not that many anyways. > > In case anyone wants them, patches against v2.6.21-rc2-116-gbb648a0 > for this are available from http://oss.oracle.com/~wli/stack_paranoia/ > Chuck, is any of this of any use to you? I said "simple." :) In the 4k/4k stack i386 kernel, is there any fundamental reason it can't be 4k/8k? We seem to be mostly hitting problems in overflowing the IRQ stack... I think. Overhead would only be 4k per CPU for 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