Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 11:40:38 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <>,,,,
	Nadav Amit <>,
	Kees Cook <>, Brian Gerst <>,
	"" <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Jann Horn <>,
	Heiko Carstens <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/29] x86/die: Don't try to recover from an OOPS on a
 non-default stack

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 01:34:51PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> The existing 'object_is_on_stack()' can probably be used:
> 	if (!object_is_on_stack(current_top_of_stack()))
> 		panic("...");
> Though that function isn't quite accurately named.  It should really
> have 'task_stack' in its name, like 'object_is_on_task_stack()'.  Or
> even better, something more concise like 'on_task_stack()'.

So I'm obviously missing something here:

object_is_on_stack() uses task_stack_page(current) -> task_struct.stack
while current_stack_pointer() reads %rsp directly.

I'm guessing %rsp and task_struct.stack are in sync?


ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.