Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759621AbYCCRvD (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:51:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753818AbYCCRuw (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:50:52 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:47260 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752339AbYCCRuv (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:50:51 -0500 Message-ID: <47CC3A51.60209@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:50:09 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek CC: "Klaus S. Madsen" , Suspend-devel list , Ingo Molnar , LKML , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Thomas Gleixner , mjg59@srcf.ucam.org Subject: Re: Regression in 2.6.25-rc3: s2ram segfaults before suspending References: <20080228192404.GH17932@hjernemadsen.org> <47C70C01.4020605@zytor.com> <20080228194920.GJ17932@hjernemadsen.org> <47C739A6.5020608@zytor.com> <20080229070028.GK17932@hjernemadsen.org> <47C873AA.6040305@zytor.com> <20080229212654.GL27212@elte.hu> <20080301094525.GQ17932@hjernemadsen.org> <20080303121735.GE28369@elf.ucw.cz> <47CC310B.8000305@zytor.com> <20080303174724.GC13869@elf.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20080303174724.GC13869@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1343 Lines: 30 Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2008-03-03 09:10:35, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Pavel Machek wrote: >>>> The only thing I don't understand is why this is suddenly a problem with >>>> 2.6.25, and not with 2.6.24? Is there a bug in 2.6.24 and previously >>>> that allows real-mode execution of non-executable pages? >>> It is strange indeed... Should it be traced as an regression? >> I'd like to understand what the heck happened, but as far as we can observe >> right now, it's a *progression*, not a regression, since executing out of a >> non-PROT_EXEC area isn't *supposed* to work... > > Okay, I guess this depends on the eye of the beholder... because s2ram > *is* supposed to work ;-). > > Ideally, I'd like to keep 2.6.24 behaviour for at least a while, so we > can try to fix the libx86 out there or something... > Pavel > PS: Matthew, there's problem in libx86: it tries to execute from area > not marked as PROT_EXEC. Allowing execution of a PROT_EXEC area is a security hole. The fact that you happened to benefit from it doesn't change its nature as a security hole. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/