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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59083C5B.5080204@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 May 2017 15:59:23 +0800
From:   Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
        "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
CC:     Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "zhong jiang" <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
Subject: [RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash

Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" to test physical address 0x6c80000000000
Because this physical address is invalid, and valid_mmap_phys_addr_range()
always return 1, so it causes crash.

My question is that should the user assure the physical address is valid?

...
[ 169.147578] ? panic+0x1f1/0x239
[ 169.150789] oops_end+0xb8/0xd0
[ 169.153910] pgtable_bad+0x8a/0x95
[ 169.157294] __do_page_fault+0x3aa/0x4a0
[ 169.161194] do_page_fault+0x30/0x80
[ 169.164750] ? do_syscall_64+0x175/0x180
[ 169.168649] page_fault+0x28/0x30

Thanks,
Xishi Qiu

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ