On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 06:55:00AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > No, please don't fail at early boot.
>> >
>> > Early boot is just about the *worst* situation to try to debug odd
>> > failures, exactly since things like
On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 06:55:00AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > No, please don't fail at early boot.
> >
> > Early boot is just about the *worst* situation to try to debug odd
> > failures, exactly since things like printk may not be reliable, and
> > things won't get logged etc.
> >
> > So
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering whether making it try to EFAULT correctly is the right
>> thing to do... We're certainly more conservative if we panic
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> I'm wondering whether making it try to EFAULT correctly is the right
> thing to do... We're certainly more conservative if we panic and not
> allow some silently failed attempt at recovery which looks successful,
> to
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 10:52:48PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 01:16:07PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > I have no idea why it was explicitly unsupported, but I'm guessing it
>> > was just to
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 10:52:48PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 01:16:07PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > I have no idea why it was explicitly unsupported, but I'm guessing it
> > was just to avoid duplicating the code. Early "ext" uaccess failures
> > are certainly
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 01:16:07PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I have no idea why it was explicitly unsupported, but I'm guessing it
> was just to avoid duplicating the code. Early "ext" uaccess failures
> are certainly not going to work, but I don't think this is a problem
> -- there's no
On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 07:01:35AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Now that early_fixup_exception has pt_regs, we can just call
>> fixup_exception from it. This will make fancy exception handlers
>> work early.
>>
>>
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 07:01:35AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Now that early_fixup_exception has pt_regs, we can just call
> fixup_exception from it. This will make fancy exception handlers
> work early.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/extable.c |