linux-kernel - Re: arm: TI BeagleBoard X15 : Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000369

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:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 16:48:01 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        linux-stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>
Subject: Re: arm: TI BeagleBoard X15 : Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
 dereference at virtual address 00000369 - Internal error: Oops: 5 [#1] SMP ARM

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 2:20 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022, at 13:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > One thing that sticks out is the print_constraints_debug() function
> > in the regulator framework, which uses a larger-than-average stack
> > to hold a string buffer, and then calls into the low-level
> > driver to get the actual data (regulator_get_voltage_rdev,
> > _regulator_is_enabled). Splitting the device access out into a
> > different function from the string handling might reduce the
> > stack usage enough to stay just under the 8KB limit, though it's
> > probably not a complete fix. I added the regulator maintainers
> > to Cc for thoughts on this.
>
> I checked the stack usage for each of the 147 functions in the
> backtrace, and as I was guessing print_constraints_debug() is
> the largest, but it's still only 168 bytes, and everything else
> is smaller, so no point hacking this.

You mentioned that we are doing probing of a device 6 levels deep.
Could one of the parent devices be marked for an asynchronous probe
thus breaking the chain?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry