* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:38:42AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 04:16:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > Can you send me whatever config and exact commit hash generated this?
> > > > I can try to
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:38:42AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 04:16:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > Can you send me whatever config and exact commit hash generated this?
> > > I can try to figure out why it failed.
> >
> > Sorry,
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Will only push it out if it passes testing.
So far it required the small fix below for 32-bit.
Thanks,
Ingo
---
arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c | 7 +++
arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 7 ---
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/a
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 04:16:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Can you send me whatever config and exact commit hash generated this?
> > I can try to figure out why it failed.
>
> Sorry, I've been traveling. I just got some time to take a look at
> this. I thin
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> It looks a *lot* better with mine and your patches applied. It probably
> would have helped Ingo and Thomas figure the problem out a lot sooner:
> [1.159583] CS: 0010 DS: ES: CR0: 80050033
> [1.159583] CR2: ff083fb8
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:41:15PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 08:25:12PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 04:16:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> Can you send me whatever confi
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 08:25:12PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 04:16:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> Can you send me whatever config and exact commit hash generated this?
> >> I can try to figure out why
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 04:16:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Can you send me whatever config and exact commit hash generated this?
>> I can try to figure out why it failed.
>
> Sorry, I've been traveling. I just got some time to take
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 04:16:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Can you send me whatever config and exact commit hash generated this?
> I can try to figure out why it failed.
Sorry, I've been traveling. I just got some time to take a look at
this. I think there are at least two unwinder issue
Can you send me whatever config and exact commit hash generated this?
I can try to figure out why it failed.
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > If we overflow the
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > If we overflow the stack into a guard page and then try to unwind
> > it with ORC, it should work perfectly: by construction, there can't
> > be any meaningful data in the guard page because
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> If we overflow the stack into a guard page and then try to unwind
> it with ORC, it should work perfectly: by construction, there can't
> be any meaningful data in the guard page because no writes to the
> guard page will have succeeded.
>
If we overflow the stack into a guard page and then try to unwind
it with ORC, it should work perfectly: by construction, there can't
be any meaningful data in the guard page because no writes to the
guard page will have succeeded.
ORC seems entirely capable of unwinding in this situation, except
13 matches
Mail list logo
