On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:48:20AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 14 July 2017 at 11:32, Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:28:48PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 13 July 2017 at 18:55, Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:10:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:49:48PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> >> > On 13 July 2017 at 11:49, Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote: > >> >> > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:58:50AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> >> > >> On 12 July 2017 at 23:33, Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> > >> >> > >> wrote: > > This means that we have to align the initial task, so the kernel Image > > will grow by THREAD_SIZE. Likewise for IRQ stacks, unless we can rework > > things such that we can dynamically allocate all of those. > > > > We can't currently do that for 64k pages, since the segment alignment > is only 64k. But we should be able to patch that up I think
I was assuming that the linked would bump up the segment alignment if a more-aligned object were placed inside. I guess that doesn't happen in all cases? ... or do you mean when the EFI stub relocates the kernel, assuming relaxed alignment constraints? > >> >> I believe that determining whether the exception was caused by a stack > >> >> overflow is not something we can do robustly or efficiently. > >> > >> Actually, if the stack pointer is within S_FRAME_SIZE of the base, and > >> the faulting address points into the guard page, that is a pretty > >> strong indicator that the stack overflowed. That shouldn't be too > >> costly? > > > > Sure, but that's still a a heuristic. For example, that also catches an > > unrelated vmalloc address gone wrong, while SP was close to the end of > > the stack. > > Yes, but the likelihood that an unrelated stray vmalloc access is > within 16 KB of a stack pointer that is close ot its limit is > extremely low, so we should be able to live with the risk of > misidentifying it. I guess, but at that point, why bother? That gives us a fuzzy check for one specific "stack overflow", while not catching the general case. So long as we have a reliable stack trace, we can figure out that was the case, and we don't set the expectation that we're trying to categorize the general case (minefield and all). Thanks, Mark.
