lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: StackProtector Oopses - Re: 2.6.25-mm1
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:34:08 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

>
> * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > yeah. Arjan - any new patches to try that might fix the bootup
> > > test?
> >
> > I've looked at the disassembly and compared it to mine, and the gcc
> > is doing something... rather unexpected. The only thing I can think
> > of is the patch below, it should make it a ton more robust...
>
> > - memset(&foo, 0, 2*sizeof(foo)); /* deliberate buffer
> > overflow */
> > + if (current->stack_canary == *(((unsigned long *)&foo)+1))
> > + *(((unsigned long *)&foo)+1) = 0;
> > + else
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "No -ftack-protector canary
> > found\n");
>
> ok, i queued this up. (with the typo that Valdis noticed fixed)
>
> but ... this bug needs to be figured out, not worked around.

well what I figured out was that the stack layout was "different".
Why/how I don't know, but being more robust against that is a good idea
in general.


--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-22 16:33    [W:0.221 / U:0.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site