linux-kernel - Re: Fix x86 32 bit FRAME

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: <478670BA.6010600@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:23:38 -0500
From:	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Fix x86 32 bit FRAME_POINTER chasing code

On 01/10/2008 01:54 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
>> +++ linux-2.6.24-rc7/arch/x86/kernel/traps_32.c
>> @@ -124,7 +124,8 @@ static inline unsigned long print_contex
>>  		unsigned long addr;
>>  
>>  		addr = frame->return_address;
>> -		ops->address(data, addr);
>> +		if (__kernel_text_address(addr))
>> +			ops->address(data, addr);
>>  		/*
>>  		 * break out of recursive entries (such as
>>  		 * end_of_stack_stop_unwind_function). Also,
>> @@ -132,6 +133,7 @@ static inline unsigned long print_contex
>>  		 * move downwards!
>>  		 */
>>  		next = frame->next_frame;
>> +		ebp = (unsigned long) next;
>>  		if (next <= frame)
> 
> thanks, applied. Nice catch!
> 
>> This patch is simple; I don't know if it's .24 candidate; the bug is 
>> pretty bad but not a recent regression, and there is obviously some 
>> risk with touching this code.
> 
> it's a 2.6.24.1 candidate i believe. We trigger plenty of various 
> crashes during x86.git maintenance and others hit various crashes in 
> -mm, so by the time .1 is released we'll have it in .25 and can backport 
> it. Most folks/distros will update to 2.6.24.1 very quickly so there's 
> no risk of months loss of quality to kerneloops.org data either.
> 

Using the same logic, why not put it in 2.6.24 and then remove it in 2.6.24.1
if it's broken?
--
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/