asmad...@codewreck.org wrote on Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 01:35:18PM +0900:
> > diff --git a/include/trace/events/9p.h b/include/trace/events/9p.h
> > index 4dfa6d7f83ba..8690a7086252 100644
> > --- a/include/trace/events/9p.h
> > +++ b/include/trace/events/9p.h
> > @@ -185,7 +185,8 @@
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 at 23:59, Justin Chen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/1/23 10:07 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:25:59 -0800
> > Justin Chen wrote:
> >
> >>> It appears the sub instruction at 0x6dd0 correctly accounts for the
> >>> extra 8 bytes, so the frame pointer is valid. So it
JP Kobryn wrote on Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 07:04:10PM -0800:
> An out of bounds read can occur within the tracepoint 9p_protocol_dump().
> In the fast assign, there is a memcpy that uses a constant size of 32
> (macro definition as P9_PROTO_DUMP_SZ). When the copy is invoked, the
> source buffer is
An out of bounds read can occur within the tracepoint 9p_protocol_dump().
In the fast assign, there is a memcpy that uses a constant size of 32
(macro definition as P9_PROTO_DUMP_SZ). When the copy is invoked, the
source buffer is not guaranteed match this size. It was found that in some
cases the
On 12/1/23 10:07 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:25:59 -0800
Justin Chen wrote:
It appears the sub instruction at 0x6dd0 correctly accounts for the
extra 8 bytes, so the frame pointer is valid. So it is our assumption
that there are no gaps between the stack frames is
On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 10:12:48AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> It appears the sub instruction at 0x6dd0 correctly accounts for the
> extra 8 bytes, so the frame pointer is valid. So it is our assumption
> that there are no gaps between the stack frames is invalid.
>
> Could you try the
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:25:59 -0800
Justin Chen wrote:
> > It appears the sub instruction at 0x6dd0 correctly accounts for the
> > extra 8 bytes, so the frame pointer is valid. So it is our assumption
> > that there are no gaps between the stack frames is invalid.
>
> Thanks for the assistance.
On 12/1/2023 1:12 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 at 00:48, Justin Chen wrote:
Hello,
Ran into an odd bug that I am unsure what the solution is. Tested a few
kernels versions and they all fail the same.
FUNCTION_GRAPH_FP_TEST was enabled with 953f534a7ed6 ("ARM: ftrace:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 at 00:48, Justin Chen wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Ran into an odd bug that I am unsure what the solution is. Tested a few
> kernels versions and they all fail the same.
>
> FUNCTION_GRAPH_FP_TEST was enabled with 953f534a7ed6 ("ARM: ftrace:
> enable HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_FP_TEST").
