linux-kernel - Re: 4.14.9 with CONFIG

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:   Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:56:32 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Alexander Tsoy <alexander@...y.me>,
        Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>,
        Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 4.14.9 with CONFIG_MCORE2 fails to boot

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Alexander Tsoy <alexander@...y.me> wrote:
> В Пт, 29/12/2017 в 14:09 -0800, Linus Torvalds пишет:
>>
>> What happens if you take a failing kernel, and then in
>> arch/x86/kernel/traps.c do_double_fault(), you change the
>>
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_X86_ESPFIX64
>>
>> to just a
>>
>>   #if 0
>>
>> do you then get an actual double-fault oops report instead of the
>> stall (and NMI oops)?
>
> This is what I get after disabling ESPFIX64 (see attachment).

Ok, looks like it made no difference for you or for Toralf.

So that was a waste of time. Damn. Also very strange how there's that
double fault in the call trace, but no actual output from any double
fault. Without the ESPFIX64 code, I don't see how that happens, but
since I have no idea what is going on here, I'm obviously missing a
lot.

Hopefully somebody else has a clue or sees something I'm missing.

                      Linus