linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: stacktrace: avoid listing stacktrace functions in stacktrace

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:28:28 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Prakash Gupta <guptap@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, will.deacon@....com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: stacktrace: avoid listing stacktrace
 functions in stacktrace

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:02:22 +0530 Prakash Gupta <guptap@...eaurora.org> wrote:

> The stacktraces always begin as follows:
> 
>  [<c00117b4>] save_stack_trace_tsk+0x0/0x98
>  [<c0011870>] save_stack_trace+0x24/0x28
>  ...
> 
> This is because the stack trace code includes the stack frames for itself.
> This is incorrect behaviour, and also leads to "skip" doing the wrong thing
> (which is the number of stack frames to avoid recording.)
> 
> Perversely, it does the right thing when passed a non-current thread.  Fix
> this by ensuring that we have a known constant number of frames above the
> main stack trace function, and always skip these.
> 
> This was fixed for arch arm by Commit 3683f44c42e9 ("ARM: stacktrace: avoid
> listing stacktrace functions in stacktrace")

I can take this (with acks, please?)

3683f44c42e9 has a cc:stable but your patch does not.  Should it?