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, 21 Nov 2014 11:34:03 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> Should we at least check to see if it is present?
>
>         if (!(pgd_entry & 1))
>                 return -1;

Maybe. But what other entry could there be?

But yes, returning -1 is "safe", since it basically says "I'm not
doing a vmalloc thing, oops if this is a bad access". So that kind of
argues for being as aggressive as possible in returning 1.

So for the first one (!pgd_entry), instead of returning -1 only for a
completely empty entry, returning it for any non-present case is
probably right.

And for the second one (where we check whether there is anything at
all in the destination), returning -1 for "anything but zero" is
probably the right thing to do.

But in the end, if you have a corrupted top-level kernel page table,
it sounds to me like you're just royally screwed anyway. So I don't
think it matters *that* much.

So I kind of agree, but it wouldn't be my primary worry. My primary
worry is actually paravirt doing something insane.

                    Linus
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ