linux-kernel - Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

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: <20170225050439.7dplheb6nyne4nkm@treble>
Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2017 23:04:39 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
        luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, brgerst@...il.com,
        dvlasenk@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 09:10:39PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> 
> > > > > Somehow, startup_32_smp() is on the stack twice.  The stack unwind led
> > > > > to the startup_32_smp() frame at 0xf50cdf9c rather than the one at
> > > > > 0xf50cdfa8 (which is where it should normally be).  So the question is
> > > > > how startup_32_smp() got executed the second time, with the wrong stack
> > > > > offset.
> > > > 
> > > > Not much idea... but this is stack dump, right? Just because some
> > > > value is on the stack does not mean it is a return address, no?
> > > 
> > > Right, but the one at 0xf50cdfa8 is where the startup_32_smp() is
> > > *supposed* to be.  If the unwinder had unwinded to that one, it wouldn't
> > > have complained.  So it looks to me like the CPU somehow booted twice:
> > > the first time at the right stack address, and the second time it
> > > somehow ended up with a different stack address.
> > > 
> > > > And .... startup_32_smp is kind of "interesting" function. Take a
> > > > look...
> > > 
> > > Yes, it's used in bringing up the CPU.
> > 
> > Can you share your .config?  
> 
> Here you go...

What version of gcc are you using?

Can you post a disassembly of the first 10 instructions of
start_secondary()?

-- 
Josh