[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090211103456.GK20518@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:34:56 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, hpa@...or.com, jeremy@...p.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH x86#core/percpu] x86: fix x86_32 stack protector bugs
* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Impact: fix x86_32 stack protector
>
> Brian Gerst found out that %gs was being initialized to stack_canary
> instead of stack_canary - 20, which basically gave the same canary
> value for all threads. Fixing this also exposed the following bugs.
>
> * cpu_idle() didn't call boot_init_stack_canary()
>
> * stack canary switching in switch_to() was being done too late making
> the initial run of a new thread use the old stack canary value.
>
> Fix all of them and while at it update comment in cpu_idle() about
> calling boot_init_stack_canary().
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Reported-by: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/stackprotector.h | 2 +-
> arch/x86/include/asm/system.h | 8 +++-----
> arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S | 1 +
> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c | 10 ++++++++++
> arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 11 +++++------
> 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
Applied to tip:core/percpu, thanks guys!
I never got around to finding his bug in practice as the latest bits of
tip:core/percpu are not in tip/master at the moment, due to that 64-bit
build failure.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists