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  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:   Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:18:40 +0100 (CET)
From:   Miroslav Benes <>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <>
cc:     Jessica Yu <>, Jiri Kosina <>,
        Petr Mladek <>,,,
        Michael Ellerman <>,
        Heiko Carstens <>,,,,
        Vojtech Pavlik <>, Jiri Slaby <>,
        Chris J Arges <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Kamalesh Babulal <>,
        Balbir Singh <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting
 reliable stack traces

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> For live patching and possibly other use cases, a stack trace is only
> useful if it can be assured that it's completely reliable.  Add a new
> save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() function to achieve that.
> Note that if the target task isn't the current task, and the target task
> is allowed to run, then it could be writing the stack while the unwinder
> is reading it, resulting in possible corruption.  So the caller of
> save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() must ensure that the task is either
> 'current' or inactive.
> save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() relies on the x86 unwinder's detection
> of pt_regs on the stack.  If the pt_regs are not user-mode registers
> from a syscall, then they indicate an in-kernel interrupt or exception
> (e.g. preemption or a page fault), in which case the stack is considered
> unreliable due to the nature of frame pointers.
> It also relies on the x86 unwinder's detection of other issues, such as:
> - corrupted stack data
> - stack grows the wrong way
> - stack walk doesn't reach the bottom
> - user didn't provide a large enough entries array
> Such issues are reported by checking unwind_error() and !unwind_done().
> Also add CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE so arch-independent code can
> determine at build time whether the function is implemented.
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <>

I do not see any difference from 4.1 version, so my

Reviewed-by: Miroslav Benes <>



Powered by blists - more mailing lists