[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0810051809130.3398@apollo>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:16:29 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...il.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kkeil@...e.de, agospoda@...hat.com, david.graham@...el.com,
bruce.w.allan@...el.com, john.ronciak@...el.com,
chris.jones@...onical.com, tim.gardner@...onical.com,
airlied@...il.com, Olaf Kirch <okir@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, David Miller wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:55:14 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> > > > > > Exactly. The access to a ro region results in a fault. I have
> > > > > > nowhere seen that trigger, but I can reproduce the trylock()
> > > > > > WARN_ON, which confirms that there is concurrent access to
> > > > > > the NVRAM registers. The backtrace pattern is similar to the
> > > > > > one you have seen.
> > > > > are you still getting WARN_ON *with* all the mutex based fixes
> > > > > already applied?
> > > >
> > > > The WARN_ON triggers with current mainline. Is there any fixlet in
> > > > Linus tree missing ?
> > > >
> > > > > with the mutex patches in place (without protection patch) we
> > > > > are still reproducing the issue, until we apply the
> > > > > set_memory_ro patch.
> > > >
> > > > That does not make sense to me. If the memory_ro patch is
> > > > providing _real_ protection then you _must_ run into an access
> > > > violation. If not, then the patch just papers over the real
> > > > problem in some mysterious way.
> > > >
> > >
> > > not if the bad code is doing copy_to_user .... (or similar)
> >
> > You mean: copy_from_user :) This would require that the e1000e
> > nvram region is writable via copy_from_user by an e1000e user space
> > interface. A quick grep does not reviel such a horrible interface.
>
> I meant a "copy_to_user" to a duff pointer, somewhere in the kernel.
Hmm, don't we check the *to address on copy_to_user ?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists