Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 13:19:45 +0300 From: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] stackleak: Disable ftrace for stackleak.c On 11.11.2018 2:30, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 01:05:30 +0300 > Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com> wrote: > >> The stackleak_erase() function is called on the trampoline stack at the >> end of syscall. This stack is not big enough for ftrace operations, >> e.g. it can be overflowed if we enable kprobe_events for stackleak_erase(). > > Is the issue with kprobes or with function tracing? Because this stops > function tracing which I only want disabled if function tracing itself > is an issue, not for other things that may use the function tracing > infrastructure. Hello Steven, I believe that stackleak erasing is not compatible with function tracing itself. That's what the kernel testing robot has hit: https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/11/09/1 I used kprobe_events just to reproduce the problem: https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2018/11/09/4 Best regards, Alexander
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.