On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:20 PM Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:43 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2018-11-29 13:43:58 [-0800], Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:04 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > > wrote:
> > > This bug got handled by Jann Horn,
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:43 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
>
> On 2018-11-29 13:43:58 [-0800], Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:04 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > wrote:
> > This bug got handled by Jann Horn, yes? (I remember seeing a related
> > thread go by...)
>
>
On 2018-11-29 13:43:58 [-0800], Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:04 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
> This bug got handled by Jann Horn, yes? (I remember seeing a related
> thread go by...)
Correct, fix sits in the tip tree. Nevertheless it was useful to spot
the other thing.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:04 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
>
> So I triggered a bug in x86 code. First the "okay" backtrace:
> |BUG: GPF in non-whitelisted uaccess (non-canonical address?)
> |general protection fault: [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
> |CPU: 26 PID: 2236 Comm: sig-xstate-bum Not
So I triggered a bug in x86 code. First the "okay" backtrace:
|BUG: GPF in non-whitelisted uaccess (non-canonical address?)
|general protection fault: [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
|CPU: 26 PID: 2236 Comm: sig-xstate-bum Not tainted 4.20.0-rc3 #45
|RIP: 0010:__fpu__restore_sig+0x1c1/0x540
|Call