linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] x86/traps: Print address on #GP

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, 11 Dec 2019 10:17:25 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] x86/traps: Print address on #GP

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:29 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 09:22:30AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Could we spare a few extra bytes to make this more readable?  I can never keep track of which number is the oops count, which is the cpu, and which is the error code.  How about:
> >
> > OOPS 1: general protection blah blah blah (CPU 0)
> >
> > and put in the next couple lines “#GP(0)”.
>
> Well, right now it is:
>
> [    2.470492] general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdfff000000000001: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> [    2.471615] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.5.0-rc1+ #6
>
> and the CPU is on the second line, the error code is before the number -
> [#1] - in that case.
>
> If we pull the number in front, we can do:
>
> [    2.470492] [#1] general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdfff000000000001: 0000 PREEMPT SMP
> [    2.471615] [#1] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.5.0-rc1+ #6
>
> and this way you know that the error code is there, after the first
> line's description.

Hmm, I like that.

>
> I guess we can do:
>
> [    2.470492] [#1] general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdfff000000000001 Error Code: 0000 PREEMPT SMP
>
> to make it even more explicit...

I like this too.

>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC