linux-kernel - Re: per-cpu related?

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:	Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:04:13 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: per-cpu related?


* Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> thanks
> >>
> >> could be caused by max_low_pfn_mapped patch...because hpet still use
> >> fixmap address that is cleared by others.
> 
> still got
> 
> calling  __stack_chk_test+0x0/0x89
> Testing -fstack-protector-all feature
> -fstack-protector-all test failed
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> WARNING: at kernel/panic.c:393 __stack_chk_test+0x61/0x89()
> Modules linked in:
> Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.26-rc9-tip-01873-ga9827e7-dirty #359
> 
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff8026615e>] warn_on_slowpath+0x6c/0xa7
>  [<ffffffff80266199>] ? __stack_chk_test+0x0/0x89
>  [<ffffffff80266199>] ? __stack_chk_test+0x0/0x89
>  [<ffffffff8022a4f4>] ? mcount_call+0x5/0x31
>  [<ffffffff80266199>] ? __stack_chk_test+0x0/0x89
>  [<ffffffff802661fa>] __stack_chk_test+0x61/0x89
>  [<ffffffff80e729e4>] kernel_init+0x1de/0x346
>  [<ffffffff8022a4f4>] ? mcount_call+0x5/0x31
>  [<ffffffff80262df7>] ? finish_task_switch+0x14/0xe3
>  [<ffffffff8022b589>] child_rip+0xa/0x11
>  [<ffffffff80e72806>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x346
>  [<ffffffff8022b57f>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x11
> 
> ---[ end trace 0f276ea63a4e83de ]---

please try latest tip/master - the self-test had to be removed. (gcc 
will treat the stackprotector-failure function as ((noreturn)) attribute 
and will optimize out the return path, making a reliable self-test 
impossible in the way we tried to)

	Ingo
--
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/