[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXSfLVcGGPM5=XJ8hxaN_sO2faS7iu8JzJdeYDaWc_rPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 12:08:49 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] x86: plumb error code and fault address through to
fault handlers
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> This is preparation for looking at trap number and fault address in the
> handlers for uaccess errors.
> This patch should not change any behavior.
Confused. $SUBJECT says you're plumbing the error code through, and
you are sort of doing it:
> -int fixup_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, int trapnr)
> +int fixup_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, int trapnr, unsigned long error_code,
> + unsigned long fault_addr)
> {
It's available here...
> const struct exception_table_entry *e;
> ex_handler_t handler;
> @@ -202,7 +212,7 @@ int fixup_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, int trapnr)
> return 0;
>
> handler = ex_fixup_handler(e);
> - return handler(e, regs, trapnr);
> + return handler(e, regs, trapnr, fault_addr);
... but you don't pass it into the handlers. Is this intentional?
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.
