linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/debug: Dump more detailed segfault info

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]

Message-ID: <20161113154958.w4pkp4nvyyau4u6z@pd.tnic>
Date:   Sun, 13 Nov 2016 16:49:58 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/debug: Dump more detailed segfault info

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 12:25:52PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hmm, enabling all *PRINTK* options from your .config doesn't change
> anything for my qemu guest here. Lemme try with your full config.

Same with your .config:

[  115.694717] strsep[3027]: segfault at 40066b ip 00007ffff7abe22b sp 00007fffffffe990 error 7 in libc-2.19.so[7ffff7a33000+19f000]
[  115.700181] RIP: 0033:[<00007ffff7abe22b>]  [<00007ffff7abe22b>] 0x7ffff7abe22b
[  115.704843] RSP: 002b:00007fffffffe990  EFLAGS: 00010202
[  115.707183] RAX: 000000000040066b RBX: 0000000000400664 RCX: 0000000000000000
[  115.709189] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 000000000000003d RDI: 0000000000400665
[  115.711207] RBP: 00007fffffffe9b0 R08: 00007ffff7dd7c60 R09: 00007ffff7deae20
[  115.713630] R10: 00007fffffffe770 R11: 00007ffff7abe200 R12: 0000000000400460
[  115.715653] R13: 00007fffffffeaa0 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
[  115.717651] FS:  00007ffff7fdc700(0000) GS:ffff88007ed00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[  115.719554] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[  115.720393] CR2: 000000000040066b CR3: 0000000079f4f000 CR4: 00000000000406e0
[  115.721409] Code: [  115.721692] 74 33 80 7e 01 00 74 22 48 89 df e8 5a 8a ff ff 48 85 c0 74 20 <c6> 00 00 48 83 c0 01 48 89 45 00 48 89 d8 48 83 c4 08 5b 5d c3 0f b6 13 38 d0 74 29 84 d2 75 15 48 c7 45 00 00 00 00 00 48 83 c4

Is this a real hw issue? I.e., maybe I should not be doing this in a
guest?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.