linux-kernel - Re: [x86/vsyscall] 3dc33bd30f Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init! exitcode=0x0000000b

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: <CALCETrWpxjKg8VrwKa3nmFVYc6EDBQeENgix0mpz5e_X6xbQig@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:23:13 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Chunyu Hu <chuhu.ncepu@...il.com>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [x86/vsyscall] 3dc33bd30f Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted
 to kill init! exitcode=0x0000000b

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Chunyu Hu <chuhu.ncepu@...il.com> wrote:
>> I hit the similar panic on Fedora 25. Is it the same issue?
>>
>>
>> [    2.527391] Freeing unused kernel memory: 1688K (ffffffffbdf66000 -
>> ffffffffbe10c000)
>> [    2.535222] Write protecting the kernel read-only data: 14336k
>> [    2.542679] Freeing unused kernel memory: 1892K (ffff94cb30827000 -
>> ffff94cb30a00000)
>> [    2.553482] Freeing unused kernel memory: 700K (ffff94cb30d51000 -
>> ffff94cb30e00000)
>> [    2.572048] x86/mm: Checked W+X mappings: passed, no W+X pages found.
>> Fatal: [    2.598239] traps: init[1] general protection ip:7fc841bfc642
>> sp:7ffc3fd85870 error:0no entropy gathering module dete[    2.606473]  in
>> libc-2.24.so[7fc841bc5000+1bd000]
>> cted
>
> I would not expect a vsyscall table problem if it's truly using glibc
> 2.24. Maybe something regressed in glibc? That really looks like an
> attempt to call vsyscalls?

There should be a vsyscall error if so, and shouldn't it be a page
fault, not a gpf?

--Andy