linux-kernel - Re: Please remove ab144f5ec64c42218a555ec1dbde6b60cf2982d6 was Re: [discuss] [PATCH] Fix triplefault on x86-64 bootup

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: <p731we8kgbd.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
Date:	12 Aug 2007 15:55:50 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Petr Vandrovec <petr@...drovec.name>
Cc:	discuss@...-64.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please remove ab144f5ec64c42218a555ec1dbde6b60cf2982d6 was Re: [discuss] [PATCH] Fix triplefault on x86-64 bootup

Petr Vandrovec <petr@...drovec.name> writes:

> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Sunday 12 August 2007 10:12, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>   after I upgraded kernel on my box to current git, only thing it did
> >> was rebooting in a loop.  After some digging I found that it is silly
> >> to apply alternative to memcpy by using that every same memcpy...
> >> Sorry if it is known bug, I do not see it reported in my LKML mailbox...
> > Ok Linus already applied your patch. Even though it's a really bad
> > fragile hack, not better than the old bug.
> > Petr are you double sure you really tested with
> > ab144f5ec64c42218a555ec1dbde6b60cf2982d6
> > already applied? I bet not -- it is the symptom exactly fixed by this patch
> 
> I'm quite sure that this patch is in my tree, as I have that "u8
> *instr = a->instr;" in apply_alternatives, and it seems that this one
> was added by checkin you mention...  My tree was synced up to:

Can you double check? I have a hard time believing it.

> It does not actually change two bytes - it changes two bytes now
> because alternative is two bytes long - it makes no sense to replace
> whole function with NOPs - it is necessary when you fall through that

It saves the jump. Admittedly not a big advantage.

-Andi
-
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/