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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@...akpoint.cc> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] consider stack access while checking for alternate signal stack > >+#ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP > >+ return sp >= current->sas_ss_sp && > >+ sp - current->sas_ss_sp < current->sas_ss_size; > > CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP is wrong: If your stack grows up and sp == > sas_ss_sp + size than you are using the last entry in your sig stack > which will be not recognized correctly. + sp - current->sas_ss_sp <= current->sas_ss_size; then? > The case where sp == sas_ss_sp > is also not detected correctly but this should not happen in real life. So you say that sp==sas_ss_sp should not be considered "on the sig stack"? > That is the PRE case which is the only relevant since we don't have any > POST architectures. The check here produces the same results as my > variant so it is okay :) > So you prefer the smaller patch with comments around it? Yes, I think it is far clearer and easier to read than what you posted. Thanks, Roland -- 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