linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] fixing the UML failure root cause

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:	Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:46:42 +1200
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] fixing the UML failure root cause

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
>
> How does that work?  The tricky case is when one of those three words
> spans a page boundary if the access to the first page is valid, but
> the access to the second page is not.  When that happens, if we report
> the fault as coming from the first page, then UML is likely to get
> think the fault was spurious and enter an infinite loop.

Hmm. Gaah, I just find that memcpy loop disgusting.

We already have that ugly "uaccess_error" crap in handle_exception(),
we might as well do something like the attached and just say "hey, now
you can catch the page fault information for a get_user/put_user
fault".

Isn't that much nicer?

You don't even have to check each word, you can just take the last
exception info from the thread-info.

              Linus

View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (1062 bytes)