| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <4ED49D610200007800063F68@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 07:52:49 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: <mingo@...e.hu>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] x86: avoid double stack traces (from show_registers())
What was called show_registers() so far already showed a stack trace
for kernel faults, and kernel_stack_pointer() isn't even valid (ix86)
or meaningful (x86-64) to be used here for faults from user mode,
hence it was pointless for show_regs() to call show_trace() after
show_registers(). Simply rename show_registers() to show_regs() and
eliminate the old definition.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/kdebug.h | 1 -
arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_64.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c | 4 ++--
arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 6 ------
7 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
--- 3.2-rc3/arch/x86/include/asm/kdebug.h
+++ 3.2-rc3-x86-no-show_registers/arch/x86/include/asm/kdebug.h
@@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ enum die_val {
extern void printk_address(unsigned long address, int reliable);
extern void die(const char *, struct pt_regs *,long);
extern int __must_check __die(const char *, struct pt_regs *, long);
-extern void show_registers(struct pt_regs *regs);
extern void show_trace(struct task_struct *t, struct pt_regs *regs,
unsigned long *sp, unsigned long bp);
extern void __show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, int all);
--- 3.2-rc3/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
+++ 3.2-rc3-x86-no-show_registers/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ int __kprobes __die(const char *str, str
current->thread.trap_no, SIGSEGV) == NOTIFY_STOP)
return 1;
- show_registers(regs);
+ show_regs(regs);
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
if (user_mode_vm(regs)) {
sp = regs->sp;
--- 3.2-rc3/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c
+++ 3.2-rc3-x86-no-show_registers/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ show_stack_log_lvl(struct task_struct *t
}
-void show_registers(struct pt_regs *regs)
+void show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
int i;
--- 3.2-rc3/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_64.c
+++ 3.2-rc3-x86-no-show_registers/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_64.c
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ show_stack_log_lvl(struct task_struct *t
show_trace_log_lvl(task, regs, sp, bp, log_lvl);
}
-void show_registers(struct pt_regs *regs)
+void show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
int i;
unsigned long sp;
--- 3.2-rc3/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ 3.2-rc3-x86-no-show_registers/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -1092,9 +1092,9 @@ int __kprobes longjmp_break_handler(stru
"current sp %p does not match saved sp %p\n",
stack_addr(regs), kcb->jprobe_saved_sp);
printk(KERN_ERR "Saved registers for jprobe %p\n", jp);
- show_registers(saved_regs);
+ show_regs(saved_regs);
printk(KERN_ERR "Current registers\n");
- show_registers(regs);
+ show_regs(regs);
BUG();
}
*regs = kcb->jprobe_saved_regs;
--- 3.2-rc3/arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c
+++ 3.2-rc3-x86-no-show_registers/arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ io_check_error(unsigned char reason, str
pr_emerg(
"NMI: IOCK error (debug interrupt?) for reason %02x on CPU %d.\n",
reason, smp_processor_id());
- show_registers(regs);
+ show_regs(regs);
if (panic_on_io_nmi)
panic("NMI IOCK error: Not continuing");
--- 3.2-rc3/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
+++ 3.2-rc3-x86-no-show_registers/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
@@ -84,12 +84,6 @@ void exit_thread(void)
}
}
-void show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs)
-{
- show_registers(regs);
- show_trace(NULL, regs, (unsigned long *)kernel_stack_pointer(regs), 0);
-}
-
void show_regs_common(void)
{
const char *vendor, *product, *board;
--
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