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: <20190405150928.775570131@linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 05 Apr 2019 17:07:02 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: [patch V2 04/29] x86/irq/64: Sanitize the top/bottom confusion

On x86 stacks go top to bottom, but the stack overflow check uses it the
other way round, which is just confusing. Clean it up and sanitize the
warning string a bit.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c |   22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ int sysctl_panic_on_stackoverflow;
 static inline void stack_overflow_check(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW
-#define STACK_TOP_MARGIN	128
+#define STACK_MARGIN	128
 	struct orig_ist *oist;
 	u64 irq_stack_top, irq_stack_bottom;
 	u64 estack_top, estack_bottom;
@@ -51,25 +51,25 @@ static inline void stack_overflow_check(
 	if (user_mode(regs))
 		return;
 
-	if (regs->sp >= curbase + sizeof(struct pt_regs) + STACK_TOP_MARGIN &&
+	if (regs->sp >= curbase + sizeof(struct pt_regs) + STACK_MARGIN &&
 	    regs->sp <= curbase + THREAD_SIZE)
 		return;
 
-	irq_stack_bottom = (u64)__this_cpu_read(irq_stack_ptr);
-	irq_stack_top = irq_stack_bottom - IRQ_STACK_SIZE + STACK_TOP_MARGIN;
-	if (regs->sp >= irq_stack_top && regs->sp <= irq_stack_bottom)
+	irq_stack_top = (u64)__this_cpu_read(irq_stack_ptr);
+	irq_stack_bottom = irq_stack_top - IRQ_STACK_SIZE + STACK_MARGIN;
+	if (regs->sp >= irq_stack_bottom && regs->sp <= irq_stack_top)
 		return;
 
 	oist = this_cpu_ptr(&orig_ist);
-	estack_bottom = (u64)oist->ist[DEBUG_STACK];
-	estack_top = estack_bottom - DEBUG_STKSZ + STACK_TOP_MARGIN;
-	if (regs->sp >= estack_top && regs->sp <= estack_bottom)
+	estack_top = (u64)oist->ist[DEBUG_STACK];
+	estack_bottom = estack_top - DEBUG_STKSZ + STACK_MARGIN;
+	if (regs->sp >= estack_bottom && regs->sp <= estack_top)
 		return;
 
-	WARN_ONCE(1, "do_IRQ(): %s has overflown the kernel stack (cur:%Lx,sp:%lx,irq stk top-bottom:%Lx-%Lx,exception stk top-bottom:%Lx-%Lx,ip:%pF)\n",
+	WARN_ONCE(1, "do_IRQ(): %s has overflown the kernel stack (cur:%Lx,sp:%lx, irq stack:%Lx-%Lx, exception stack: %Lx-%Lx, ip:%pF)\n",
 		current->comm, curbase, regs->sp,
-		irq_stack_top, irq_stack_bottom,
-		estack_top, estack_bottom, (void *)regs->ip);
+		irq_stack_bottom, irq_stack_top,
+		estack_bottom, estack_top, (void *)regs->ip);
 
 	if (sysctl_panic_on_stackoverflow)
 		panic("low stack detected by irq handler - check messages\n");


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ