linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Allow i386 crash kernels to handle 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070315054726.GC6766@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:17:26 +0530
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com>
To:	Horms <horms@...ge.net.au>
Cc:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...Source.com>, hbabu@...ibm.com,
	fastboot@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Allow i386 crash kernels to handle x86_64 dumps

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:07:56PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:25:36AM +0530, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:46:38AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:00:09PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > The specific case I am encountering is kdump under Xen with a 64 bit
> > > > hypervisor and 32 bit kernel/userspace. The dump created is a 64 bit due
> > > > to the hypervisor but the dump kernel is 32 bit to match the domain 0
> > > > kernel.
> > > > 
> > > > It's possibly less likely to be useful in a purely native scenario but I
> > > > see no reason to disallow it.
> > > 
> > > For native Linux, would this cover the case where the pre-crash kernel
> > > is 64bit and the crashdump (post-crash) kernel is 32bit?
> > > 
> > 
> > I think so. Though I have never tried this.
> > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...source.com>
> > > > 
> > > > --- pristine-linux-2.6.18/include/asm-i386/elf.h	2006-09-20 04:42:06.000000000 +0100
> > > > +++ linux-2.6.18-xen/include/asm-i386/elf.h	2007-03-14 16:42:30.000000000 +0000
> > > > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
> > > >   * This is used to ensure we don't load something for the wrong architecture.
> > > >   */
> > > >  #define elf_check_arch(x) \
> > > > -	(((x)->e_machine == EM_386) || ((x)->e_machine == EM_486))
> > > > +	(((x)->e_machine == EM_386) || ((x)->e_machine == EM_486) || ((x)->e_machine == EM_X86_64))
> > 
> > But I think changing this macro might run into issues. It is being used at
> > few places in kernel, for example while loading module. This will essentially
> > mean that we allow loading 64bit x86_64 modules on 32bit i386 systems?
> > 
> > Similarly, load_elf_interp() is using it, again will we allow loading a 
> > interp written for X86_64 on a 32bit i386 machine?
> > 
> > Should we create a separate macro something like elf_check_allowed_arch(),
> > to take care of such corner cases?
> 
> That sounds reasonable to me. Though perhaps it could just be
> kexec_elf_check_arch() for now, as I don't think there are any
> other consumers of it.

Kexec will also not allow loading an x86_64 kernel on a 32bit machine.
So how about something like vmcore_elf_allowed_cross_arch()? Vmcore code
can continue to check elf_check_arch() and if that fails it can invoke
vmcore_elf_allowed_cross_arch() to find out what cross arch are allowed
for vmcore.

Thanks
Vivek
-
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/