linux-kernel - Re: ce56a86e2a ("x86/mm: Limit mmap() of /dev/mem to valid physical addresses"): kernel BUG at arch/x86/mm/physaddr.c:79!

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: <CAOJUGydTX7A=1-ZnODDJ+qAMbvFeb1TabLRKKx9BaLmDUOSj6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:28:56 -0600
From:   Craig Bergstrom <craigb@...gle.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, wfg@...ux.intel.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: ce56a86e2a ("x86/mm: Limit mmap() of /dev/mem to valid physical
 addresses"): kernel BUG at arch/x86/mm/physaddr.c:79!

Sounds good.  Thanks for the context.

I'll keep this on my plate and I'll turn something around once I've
had a chance to test a bit, probably next week.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Craig Bergstrom <craigb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> Reverting seems like the right approach at the moment.  My apologies
>> for the breakage so late the in the cycle.
>
> Note that there's no need for you to apologize and you carry exactly zero amount
> of blame for the late-cycle breakage: it was my decision to send it to Linus so
> quickly, you never asked for it to be sent upstream on such a short notice.
>
> ( Classic "patch makes sense, looks good, other arches ar doing this too, and I
>   tested it myself too on multiple systems, so it must be obviously fine for
>   everyone" moment. )
>
> Your change still makes sense from a robustness POV, so please send it again with
> the suggested fixes - and I'll be more careful with the upstream merge this time.
>
> Thanks,
>
>         Ingo