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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 26 Oct 2014 05:11:51 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <>, X86 ML <>,
	"" <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Richard Weinberger <>
Subject: Re: vmalloced stacks on x86_64?

2014-10-25 2:22 GMT+02:00 Andy Lutomirski <>:
> Is there any good reason not to use vmalloc for x86_64 stacks?
> The tricky bits I've thought of are:
>  - On any context switch, we probably need to probe the new stack
> before switching to it.  That way, if it's going to fault due to an
> out-of-sync pgd, we still have a stack available to handle the fault.

Would that prevent from any further fault on a vmalloc'ed kernel
stack? We would need to ensure that pre-faulting, say the first byte,
is enough to sync the whole new stack entirely otherwise we risk
another future fault and some places really aren't safely faulted.

>  - Any time we change cr3, we may need to check that the pgd
> corresponding to rsp is there.  If now, we need to sync it over.
>  - For simplicity, we probably want all stack ptes to be present all
> the time.  This is fine; vmalloc already works that way.
>  - If we overrun the stack, we double-fault.  This should be easy to
> detect: any double-fault where rsp is less than 20 bytes from the
> bottom of the stack is a failure to deliver a non-IST exception due to
>  a stack overflow.  The question is: what do we do if this happens?
> We could just panic (guaranteed to work).  We could also try to
> recover by killing the offending task, but that might be a bit
> challenging, since we're in IST context.  We could do something truly
> awful: increment RSP by a few hundred bytes, point RIP at do_exit, and
> return from the double fault.
> Thoughts?  This shouldn't be all that much code.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists