On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 12:49, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Marco Elver writes:
> ...
> >
> > The choice is between:
> >
> > 1. ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX (as a matter of fact, the ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX patch
> > is already in -mm). Perhaps we could optimize it further, by checking
> > ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX in buf, and
Marco Elver writes:
...
>
> The choice is between:
>
> 1. ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX (as a matter of fact, the ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX patch
> is already in -mm). Perhaps we could optimize it further, by checking
> ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX in buf, and advancing buf like you propose, but I'm
> not sure it's worth worrying
On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 09:23, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 05/03/2021 à 08:50, Marco Elver a écrit :
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 04:01PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >> Marco Elver writes:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:48PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 04/03/2021 à 12:31,
Le 05/03/2021 à 08:50, Marco Elver a écrit :
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 04:01PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Marco Elver writes:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:48PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 04/03/2021 à 12:31, Marco Elver a écrit :
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 12:23, Christophe Leroy
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 04:01PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Marco Elver writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:48PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >> Le 04/03/2021 à 12:31, Marco Elver a écrit :
> >> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 12:23, Christophe Leroy
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > Le 03/03/2021 à
Marco Elver writes:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:48PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Le 04/03/2021 à 12:31, Marco Elver a écrit :
>> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 12:23, Christophe Leroy
>> > wrote:
>> > > Le 03/03/2021 à 11:56, Marco Elver a écrit :
>> > > >
>> > > > Somewhat tangentially, I also
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 15:08, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 04/03/2021 à 13:48, Marco Elver a écrit :
> > From d118080eb9552073f5dcf1f86198f3d86d5ea850 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Marco Elver
> > Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 13:15:51 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] kfence: fix reports if
Le 04/03/2021 à 13:48, Marco Elver a écrit :
From d118080eb9552073f5dcf1f86198f3d86d5ea850 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Marco Elver
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 13:15:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] kfence: fix reports if constant function prefixes exist
Some architectures prefix all functions with a
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:48PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 04/03/2021 à 12:31, Marco Elver a écrit :
> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 12:23, Christophe Leroy
> > wrote:
> > > Le 03/03/2021 à 11:56, Marco Elver a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Somewhat tangentially, I also note that e.g.
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 13:00, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 04/03/2021 à 12:48, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Le 04/03/2021 à 12:31, Marco Elver a écrit :
> >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 12:23, Christophe Leroy
> >> wrote:
> >>> Le 03/03/2021 à 11:56, Marco Elver a écrit :
>
>
Le 04/03/2021 à 12:48, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
Le 04/03/2021 à 12:31, Marco Elver a écrit :
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 12:23, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
Le 03/03/2021 à 11:56, Marco Elver a écrit :
Somewhat tangentially, I also note that e.g. show_regs(regs) (which
was printed along the
Le 04/03/2021 à 12:31, Marco Elver a écrit :
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 12:23, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
Le 03/03/2021 à 11:56, Marco Elver a écrit :
Somewhat tangentially, I also note that e.g. show_regs(regs) (which
was printed along the KFENCE report above) didn't include the top
frame in the
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 12:23, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
> Le 03/03/2021 à 11:56, Marco Elver a écrit :
> >
> > Somewhat tangentially, I also note that e.g. show_regs(regs) (which
> > was printed along the KFENCE report above) didn't include the top
> > frame in the "Call Trace", so this assumption
Le 03/03/2021 à 11:56, Marco Elver a écrit :
Somewhat tangentially, I also note that e.g. show_regs(regs) (which
was printed along the KFENCE report above) didn't include the top
frame in the "Call Trace", so this assumption is definitely not
isolated to KFENCE.
Now, I have tested PPC64
Le 03/03/2021 à 11:39, Marco Elver a écrit :
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 11:32, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
Le 02/03/2021 à 10:53, Marco Elver a écrit :
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 10:27, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
Le 02/03/2021 à 10:21, Alexander Potapenko a écrit :
[ 14.998426] BUG: KFENCE: invalid
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 11:39, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 02/03/2021 à 12:39, Marco Elver a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:21, Christophe Leroy
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> Booting with 'no_hash_pointers" I get the following. Does it helps ?
>
> [ 16.837198]
>
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 11:32, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 02/03/2021 à 10:53, Marco Elver a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 10:27, Christophe Leroy
> > wrote:
> >> Le 02/03/2021 à 10:21, Alexander Potapenko a écrit :
> [ 14.998426] BUG: KFENCE: invalid read in
>
Le 02/03/2021 à 12:39, Marco Elver a écrit :
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:21, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
[...]
Booting with 'no_hash_pointers" I get the following. Does it helps ?
[ 16.837198]
==
[ 16.848521] BUG: KFENCE:
Le 02/03/2021 à 10:53, Marco Elver a écrit :
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 10:27, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
Le 02/03/2021 à 10:21, Alexander Potapenko a écrit :
[ 14.998426] BUG: KFENCE: invalid read in finish_task_switch.isra.0+0x54/0x23c
[ 14.998426]
[ 15.007061] Invalid read at 0x(ptrval):
On Mär 03 2021, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 11:32, Christophe Leroy
> wrote:
>> ./include/linux/kern_levels.h:5:18: warning: format '%zd' expects argument
>> of type 'signed size_t',
>> but argument 3 has type 'ptrdiff_t' {aka 'const long int'} [-Wformat=]
>> 5 | #define
Le 02/03/2021 à 12:40, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
Christophe Leroy writes:
Le 02/03/2021 à 10:53, Marco Elver a écrit :
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 10:27, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
Le 02/03/2021 à 10:21, Alexander Potapenko a écrit :
[ 14.998426] BUG: KFENCE: invalid read in
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 10:40:03PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >> -- Change the unwinder, if it's possible for ppc32.
> >
> > I don't think it is possible.
>
> I think this actually is the solution.
>
> It seems the good architectures have all added support for
> arch_stack_walk(), and we
Christophe Leroy writes:
> Le 02/03/2021 à 10:53, Marco Elver a écrit :
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 10:27, Christophe Leroy
>> wrote:
>>> Le 02/03/2021 à 10:21, Alexander Potapenko a écrit :
> [ 14.998426] BUG: KFENCE: invalid read in
> finish_task_switch.isra.0+0x54/0x23c
> [
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:21, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
[...]
> >> Booting with 'no_hash_pointers" I get the following. Does it helps ?
> >>
> >> [ 16.837198]
> >> ==
> >> [ 16.848521] BUG: KFENCE: invalid read in
> >>
Le 02/03/2021 à 10:53, Marco Elver a écrit :
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 10:27, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
Le 02/03/2021 à 10:21, Alexander Potapenko a écrit :
[ 14.998426] BUG: KFENCE: invalid read in finish_task_switch.isra.0+0x54/0x23c
[ 14.998426]
[ 15.007061] Invalid read at 0x(ptrval):
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 10:27, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
> Le 02/03/2021 à 10:21, Alexander Potapenko a écrit :
> >> [ 14.998426] BUG: KFENCE: invalid read in
> >> finish_task_switch.isra.0+0x54/0x23c
> >> [ 14.998426]
> >> [ 15.007061] Invalid read at 0x(ptrval):
> >> [ 15.010906]
> [ 14.998426] BUG: KFENCE: invalid read in
> finish_task_switch.isra.0+0x54/0x23c
> [ 14.998426]
> [ 15.007061] Invalid read at 0x(ptrval):
> [ 15.010906] finish_task_switch.isra.0+0x54/0x23c
> [ 15.015633] kunit_try_run_case+0x5c/0xd0
> [ 15.019682]
Le 02/03/2021 à 10:21, Alexander Potapenko a écrit :
[ 14.998426] BUG: KFENCE: invalid read in finish_task_switch.isra.0+0x54/0x23c
[ 14.998426]
[ 15.007061] Invalid read at 0x(ptrval):
[ 15.010906] finish_task_switch.isra.0+0x54/0x23c
[ 15.015633] kunit_try_run_case+0x5c/0xd0
[
Le 02/03/2021 à 09:58, Marco Elver a écrit :
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 09:37, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
Add architecture specific implementation details for KFENCE and enable
KFENCE for the ppc32 architecture. In particular, this implements the
required interface in .
Nice!
KFENCE requires
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 09:37, Christophe Leroy
wrote:
> Add architecture specific implementation details for KFENCE and enable
> KFENCE for the ppc32 architecture. In particular, this implements the
> required interface in .
Nice!
> KFENCE requires that attributes for pages from its memory pool
Add architecture specific implementation details for KFENCE and enable
KFENCE for the ppc32 architecture. In particular, this implements the
required interface in .
KFENCE requires that attributes for pages from its memory pool can
individually be set. Therefore, force the Read/Write linear map
31 matches
Mail list logo
