linux-kernel - Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

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: <20170829092718.amahzkaobfnnfvxq@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:27:19 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: tip -ENOBOOT - bisected to locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement
 fast refcount overflow protection


* Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 10:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Greetings,
> > > 
> > > Take 2 of KVM bisect as you work fingered $subject.  Take 1 was stymied
> > > by build dependencies (aa5d1b81, df340524) which I foolishly tried to
> > > skip, leading git bisect to end up handing me a list of commits that
> > > might be busted.  During take 2, I added those two as required.
> > > 
> > > Symptom is a few splats as below, with box finally hanging.  Network
> > > comes up, but neither ssh nor console login is possible.
> > 
> > Just to double check, does the patch below also cure the regression?
> > If we don't find the bug it might be safer than a full revert.
> 
> I reverted it, and vbox now boots.  Should I still try the below?

Would be nice, so I can stick a Tested-by on it and such!

Thanks,

	Ingo