On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 02:10:13PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott
> ---
> Since last time: Minor style cleanups. Re-wrote check_alloca to
> correctly handle all stack types. While doing that, I also real
Hello Laura,
Thanks again for your work.
Please see some comments below.
On 19.07.2018 00:10, Laura Abbott wrote:
> Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott
> ---
> Since last time: Minor style cleanups. Re-wrote check_alloca to
> correctly ha
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott
> ---
> Since last time: Minor style cleanups. Re-wrote check_alloca to
> correctly handle all stack types. While doing that, I also realized
> cur
Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott
---
Since last time: Minor style cleanups. Re-wrote check_alloca to
correctly handle all stack types. While doing that, I also realized
current_top_of_stack was incorrect so I fixed that as well.
---
arch/
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:53:12PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> On 14.05.2018 13:06, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I think it is reasonable to panic() here even with CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
> > selected.
>
> It's too tough for CONFIG_VMAP_STACK on x86 - the system can proceed to live.
> Anyway, the check_a
On 14.05.2018 13:06, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:35:25PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>> On 14.05.2018 08:15, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 11:40:07AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
So what would you think if I do the following in check_alloca():
>>>
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:35:25PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> On 14.05.2018 08:15, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 11:40:07AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> >> So what would you think if I do the following in check_alloca():
> >>
> >>if (size >= stack_left) {
> >> #if !def
On 14.05.2018 08:15, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 11:40:07AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>> It seems that previously I was very "lucky" to accidentally have those
>> MIN_STACK_LEFT,
>> call trace depth and oops=panic together to experience a hang on stack
>> overflow
>> during
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 11:40:07AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> It seems that previously I was very "lucky" to accidentally have those
> MIN_STACK_LEFT,
> call trace depth and oops=panic together to experience a hang on stack
> overflow
> during BUG().
>
>
> When I run my test in a loop _wit
Hello Mark,
Thanks a lot for your reply!
On 11.05.2018 19:13, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 06:50:09PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>> On 06.05.2018 11:22, Alexander Popov wrote:
>>> On 04.05.2018 14:09, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> + stack_left = sp & (THREAD_SIZE - 1);
>>>
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 06:50:09PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> On 06.05.2018 11:22, Alexander Popov wrote:
> > On 04.05.2018 14:09, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > + stack_left = sp & (THREAD_SIZE - 1);
> > + BUG_ON(stack_left < 256 || size >= stack_left - 256);
Hello everyone,
On 06.05.2018 11:22, Alexander Popov wrote:
> On 04.05.2018 14:09, Mark Rutland wrote:
> + stack_left = sp & (THREAD_SIZE - 1);
> + BUG_ON(stack_left < 256 || size >= stack_left - 256);
Is this arbitrary, or is there something special about 256?
Even if
On 04.05.2018 14:09, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:33:38PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>> Hello Mark and Laura,
>>
>> Let me join the discussion. Mark, thanks for your feedback!
>>
>> On 03.05.2018 10:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> Hi Laura,
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:33:2
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 12:00:26PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 05/03/2018 12:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > +asmlinkage void erase_kstack(void)
> > > +{
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * So let's write the poison value to the ker
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:33:38PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> Hello Mark and Laura,
>
> Let me join the discussion. Mark, thanks for your feedback!
>
> On 03.05.2018 10:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi Laura,
> >
> > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> >>
> >> Impl
On 03.05.2018 22:09, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 05/03/2018 10:33 AM, Alexander Popov wrote:
>> On 03.05.2018 10:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
+ /* Reset the lowest_stack value for the next syscall */
+ current->thread.lowest_stac
On 05/03/2018 10:33 AM, Alexander Popov wrote:
Hello Mark and Laura,
Let me join the discussion. Mark, thanks for your feedback!
On 03.05.2018 10:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Laura,
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the
On 05/03/2018 12:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Laura,
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott
---
Now written in C instead of a bunch of assembly.
This looks neat!
I have a few m
Hello Mark and Laura,
Let me join the discussion. Mark, thanks for your feedback!
On 03.05.2018 10:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>
>> Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura A
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Alexander Popov wrote:
> Hello Laura and Kees,
>
> On 03.05.2018 02:07, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> On 05/02/2018 02:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
>>
Hello Laura and Kees,
On 03.05.2018 02:07, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 02:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>>
>>> Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
>>
>> Awesome! Notes below for both you and Alexander, since I thin
On 3 May 2018 at 09:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>
>> Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott
>> ---
>> Now written in C instead of a bunch of assembly.
>
> This looks
Hi Laura,
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott
> ---
> Now written in C instead of a bunch of assembly.
This looks neat!
I have a few minor comments below.
> diff --git a
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 02:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> struct stackleak {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK
>> unsigned long lowest;
>> #ifdef CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS
>> unsigned long prev_lowest;
>> #endif
>> #end
On 05/02/2018 02:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
Awesome! Notes below for both you and Alexander, since I think we can
create a common code base instead of having near-duplicates in the
a
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
Awesome! Notes below for both you and Alexander, since I think we can
create a common code base instead of having near-duplicates in the
arch/ trees...
>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Ab
Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott
---
Now written in C instead of a bunch of assembly.
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig| 1 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h| 6
arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile| 3 ++
arch/ar
On 02/21/2018 03:53 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
I *think* this should happen in finish_ret_to_user a few lines down, since we
can call C code if we branch to work_pending, dirtying the stack.
I think you're right but this didn't immediately work when I tried it.
I'll have to dig into this some mor
On 02/21/2018 07:38 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Laura,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 05:13:03PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
Neat!
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
index ec2ee720e33e..b909b436293a 100644
-
Hi Laura,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 05:13:03PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
Neat!
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> index ec2ee720e33e..b909b436293a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/ar
Implementation of stackleak based heavily on the x86 version
Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig| 1 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h| 6 ++
arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 3 +
arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 108
31 matches
Mail list logo
