linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc3 hangs in early boot on Sun Ultra5

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:	Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:02:22 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	mikpe@...uu.se, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc3 hangs in early boot on Sun Ultra5

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, David Miller wrote:
> What the FUTEX checking code is doing now is doing a "user" access
> with set_fs(KERNEL_DS) since it runs from the kernel bootup early init
> sequence.  And this is illegal according to the existing checks.
> 
> When we do set_fs(KERNEL_DS) then pass a "user" pointer down
> into a system call or something like that, we give it a pointer
> that "cannot fault".  So if we get into the fault handling
> path here for a case like that we really do want to scream and
> print out an OOPS message in my opinion.

So it would be correct to set_fs(USER_DS) then do the check and switch
back to KERNEL_DS ?
 
> I realize that not many platforms other than sparc64 can check
> for things this precisely, but it's something to consider.

Hmm, I missed that.
 
> Did this FUTEX change go into -stable too?

It's queued, AFAIK

Thanks,
	tglx
--
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/