[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081124122013.GA24810@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:20:13 +0100
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: [PATCH -tip] kmemcheck: fix dynamic enable/disable
(Ingo: Will send pull request for this later :-))
>From 6f505f59011e565c2dbb7a220702feb0447cc854 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:52:05 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] kmemcheck: fix dynamic enable/disable
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com> wrote:
> I received a lot of errors after manually enabling kmemcheck
> in /proc (it had been turned off due to oneshot mode). It
> might be a good idea to put a warning that errrors found after
> enabling it at any time other than boot might be spurious.
Fixed. This was the problem: Instructions with multiple address
operands could look up the shadow of an address that had
previously been un-hidden. After handling the memory access, the
page would get hidden again. The fix is to verify that the page
is present before we return a shadow pointer.
Reported-by: Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>
Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
---
arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/kmemcheck.c | 10 ++++++++++
arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/shadow.c | 2 ++
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/kmemcheck.c b/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/kmemcheck.c
index 056b4f1..12a4bbd 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/kmemcheck.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/kmemcheck.c
@@ -707,6 +707,16 @@ bool kmemcheck_trap(struct pt_regs *regs)
}
/*
+ * At this point, we know that the trap was kmemcheck's. However, if
+ * kmemcheck was disabled, we need to return immediately (and stop
+ * emulating the REP instruction).
+ */
+ if (!kmemcheck_enabled) {
+ kmemcheck_hide(regs);
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ /*
* We're emulating a REP MOVS/STOS instruction. Are we done yet?
* Of course, 64-bit needs to handle CX/ECX/RCX differently...
*/
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/shadow.c b/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/shadow.c
index 196dddc..62a0f63 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/shadow.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/shadow.c
@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ void *kmemcheck_shadow_lookup(unsigned long address)
pte = kmemcheck_pte_lookup(address);
if (!pte)
return NULL;
+ if (pte_present(*pte))
+ return NULL;
page = virt_to_page(address);
if (!page->shadow)
--
1.5.6.5
--
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