[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1329186144.2534.26.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:22:24 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, paulus@...ba.org,
cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] kernel: backtrace unwind support
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 12:37 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > yep, looks interesting.. not sure about the mathematical proof though ;)
>
> Well, I can already say what the old code did horribly horribly wrong:
>
> - *all* stack accesses need to go through a validation function, they
> can never *ever* just try to access the stack.
>
> The validation function really needs to really check the full
> range of the stack area, not something random.
>
> - all dwarf information accesses need to similarly validate the
> access, and accept that sometimes the dwarf info is simply missing or
> actively wrong.
In addition it should all go through something like
copy_from_user_inatomic(), ie, all access to that stuff should have
built-in fault recovery without triggering high level page faults, stack
expansion etc...
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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