On 11/16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Subject: x86/dumpstack: Don't try to access user space code of other tasks
> From: Thomas Gleixner
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 22:26:52 +0100
>
> sysrq-t ends up invoking show_opcodes() for each task which tries to access
> the user space code of other processes
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:01:03PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Subject: x86/dumpstack: Don't try to access user space code of other tasks
> From: Thomas Gleixner
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 22:26:52 +0100
>
> sysrq-t ends up invoking show_opcodes() for each task which tries to access
> the user
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 3:37 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 16 2020 at 15:04, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 2:01 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c | 23 +++
> >> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
On Mon, Nov 16 2020 at 15:04, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 2:01 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c | 23 +++
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpst
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 2:01 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c | 23 +++
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
> @@ -78,6 +78,9 @@ static int copy_code(struct pt_regs
On Tue, Nov 03 2020 at 19:20, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 07:11:15PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> > I'm thinking copy_code() should not use copy_from_user_nmi() if former
>> > can be called in non-atomic context too.
While copy_from_user_nmi() is named that way, it can be in
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 07:11:15PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I'm thinking copy_code() should not use copy_from_user_nmi() if former
> > can be called in non-atomic context too.
>
> I understand, but why do you think this makes sense?
Because the copy_from_user_nmi()'s name tells me that it
On 11/03, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 06:47:44PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > I'm thinking this should not use the atomic variant if it can get called
> > > in !atomic context too.
> >
> > For what?
>
> I'm thinking copy_code() should not use copy_from_user_nmi() if form
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 06:47:44PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I'm thinking this should not use the atomic variant if it can get called
> > in !atomic context too.
>
> For what?
I'm thinking copy_code() should not use copy_from_user_nmi() if former
can be called in non-atomic context too.
--
On 11/03, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 01:50:34PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Another problem is that show_opcodes() makes no sense if user_mode(regs)
> > and tsk is not current.
>
> Because if not current, we would access *some* user address space but
> not the one to whi
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 01:50:34PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Another problem is that show_opcodes() makes no sense if user_mode(regs)
> and tsk is not current.
Because if not current, we would access *some* user address space but
not the one to which regs belong to?
> Try "echo t > /proc/sysr
On 10/02, Mark Mossberg wrote:
>
> Printing "Bad RIP value" if copy_code() fails can be misleading for
> userspace pointers, since copy_code() can fail if the instruction
> pointer is valid, but the code is paged out.
Another problem is that show_opcodes() makes no sense if user_mode(regs)
and tsk
12 matches
Mail list logo
