[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4832B74F.5040402@qumranet.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 14:34:39 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make LIST_POISON less deadly
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com> writes:
>
>
>> The list macros use LIST_POISON1 and LIST_POISON2 as undereferencable
>> pointers in order to trap erronous use of freed list_heads. Unfortunately
>> userspace can arrange for those pointers to actually be dereferencable,
>> potentially turning an oops to an expolit.
>>
>> To avoid this allow architectures (currently x86_64 only) to override
>> the default values for these pointers with truly-undereferncable values.
>> This is easy on x86_64 as the virtual address space is smaller than
>> the range spanned by pointer values.
>>
>
> Hmm, thought I had sent a reply earlier, but don't see it so again.
> My apologies if you see it twice.
>
No, this is the first one I see.
> The problem with your address values is that they're non canonical
> and will result in a #GP, not #PF and oops handler cannot display
> the address which will make them much less obvious.
>
> I would rather use a guaranteed to be unmapped but canonical
> address like in the ffffc10000000000 - ffffc1ffffffffff range
> so that you still get page faults.
>
Makes sense. I'll send out v3.
Is there a similar range on i386?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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