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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 21:13:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ftrace: Make sure that ftrace trampolines are not RWX On Wed, 24 May 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote: > OK, it crashed on one of my tests. I removed the patch and it boots > fine, and crashes when I add it back. It reproduces here with your config. > BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffff880214f5c000 > IP: new_slab+0x1e8/0x2b4 > PGD 338c067 > P4D 338c067 > PUD 338f067 > PMD 212022063 > PTE 8000000214f5c161 > > Oops: 0003 [#1] SMP > Modules linked in: > CPU: 3 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.12.0-rc2-test+ #42 > Hardware name: MSI MS-7823/CSM-H87M-G43 (MS-7823), BIOS V1.6 02/22/2014 > task: ffff8802153a8000 task.stack: ffffc90000c74000 > RIP: 0010:new_slab+0x1e8/0x2b4 > RSP: 0000:ffffc90000c77b28 EFLAGS: 00010282 > RAX: 0000000040040000 RBX: ffff880216003f00 RCX: ffff880214f5c058 > RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff880214f5c000 RDI: ffff880216003f00 > RBP: ffffc90000c77b70 R08: 000000000000002a R09: 0000000000000000 > R10: 00000000000201e2 R11: 0000000000020190 R12: ffff880214f5c000 > R13: 000000000000002e R14: 0000000000000001 R15: ffffea000853d700 > FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88021eb80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > CR2: ffff880214f5c000 CR3: 000000000221d000 CR4: 00000000001406e0 > Call Trace: > ? interleave_nodes+0x29/0x40 > ___slab_alloc+0x2e8/0x49e That does not make any sense, but I'm digging into it. Thanks, tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists