On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:26:30AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > From: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > We currently special-case stack overflow on the task stack. We're
>> > going to start putting special stacks in the fixmap with a custom
>> > layout, so they'll have guard pages, too. Teach the unwinder to be
>> > able to unwind an overflow of any of the stacks.
>>
>> Why isn't this together with 01/21? The two cases seem to be entirely
>> identical and fundamentally the same issue.
>
> Yeah, they probably do belong in the same patch.
>
>> In fact, maybe the whole "stack overflow" special cases should be in
>> "get_stack_info()" itself, rather than be special-cased in the
>> callers?
>
> I would be nervous about doing that. Several of the get_stack_info()
> callers rely on it being honest.
>
> In fact, looking deeper at the above patch, it doesn't seem convincingly
> safe to me. What if the adjacent page doesn't exist? Then when the
> oops dumping code dereferences the 'stack' variable, you get an oops in
> your oops.
>
Isn't the oops dumping code supposed to dereference everything using a
special safe function?
Anyway, get_stack_info() wouldn't really be lying. It would just be
returning something where begin..end doesn't contain the requested
pointer.
From 1585282743746277540@xxx Tue Nov 28 04:30:36 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1585216063813693983
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread