[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160703094038.GA1781@pd.tnic>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 11:40:38 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/29] x86/die: Don't try to recover from an OOPS on a
non-default stack
On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 01:34:51PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> The existing 'object_is_on_stack()' can probably be used:
>
> if (!object_is_on_stack(current_top_of_stack()))
> panic("...");
>
> Though that function isn't quite accurately named. It should really
> have 'task_stack' in its name, like 'object_is_on_task_stack()'. Or
> even better, something more concise like 'on_task_stack()'.
So I'm obviously missing something here:
object_is_on_stack() uses task_stack_page(current) -> task_struct.stack
while current_stack_pointer() reads %rsp directly.
I'm guessing %rsp and task_struct.stack are in sync?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
